Good point. Sometimes it's difficult for people to determine relevance: it's easy to read everything as relevant, since it's part of the case play.

The way out, it seems to me, is to return to the text of the rule. Cases are applications of rules. Anything included in the case that the rule fails to mention is merely adventitious.

In all of your examples, the pieces you mention do not appear in the text of the exemplified rule, and that explains why we should not read those elements back into the rule.

Instead, I would read into the intent of the rule. Sometimes, case plays are designed to show the intent of the rule.

In the OP, the case play refers to 5 seconds or less remaining in the game; but the rule does not mention that at all.

The case play does, however, give great insight into the intent of the rule.

This is NOT a case play. It is a COMMENT about a specific situation that CONTRADICTS the case play.

The time remaining is absolutely imperative to the play in question.

COMMENT: In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game...

The intent of this rule is to give the official a reason to NOT blow the whistle when the team that is leading the game is in a situation where they should not have to throw the ball in. If there are more than 5 seconds remaining in the game, then you have NO justification for calling a technical foul when a delay of game is the appropriate penalty. None. You are making it up if you think you do. The comment is clear- the threshold is 5 seconds while the clock is running.

Given the fact that the comment explicitly states that you are to ignore or T a throw-in plane violation with the clock running and five seconds or less remaining, but you believe you can expand it, what is your imaginary cutoff? 9 seconds? 20 seconds? 4 minutes?

Good luck explaining this situation to a supervisor if you want to start making up reasons to T players when there are other penalties in place to deal with their actions. In my area, the conversation would go something like this:

Assignor: "Why did you T a player for crossing the throw-in boundary when no warning had been given?"
Official: "I didn't think it was fair that they were trying to stop the clock- I felt a technical foul would teach them a lesson!"
Assignor: "How much time was remaining?"
Official: "About 8 seconds."
Assignor: "Are you open next Tuesday? I have a reserve 7th grade girls game I need filled."

Fixed it for you.

No one here has said they'd T for crossing the boundary plane. I would simply ignore that.

If a B player, after a B basket, throws the ball to the other endline, I don't care what part of the game we're in, they get the T.

If a B player, after a B basket, slaps the ball to the official with 8 seconds left, I'll bat it to the thrower and start my count when it's appropriate.

If a B player, after a B basket, grabs the ball and holds it with 8 seconds left, I'm just going to stand there and stare at him.

The threshold for a T on this case play is pretty high, even with under 5 seconds.

Snag -what if the losing team was coming out of a 30 second TO when the other team was getting ready to shoot a FT but they stayed in to the point of having to get a delay warning? Would you not give the warning since, in your mind, they are intentionally trying to gain an advantage (more info than can be given in a 30 second TO) and whack them with a T immediately?