Linker, no we can't make the OOT player just act with a raise or a call?. The rule is specific. If the action changes for the OOT player then he is allowed to take the bet back and do what he wants.
Here's the thinking: The OOT player was making a play against a certain action, in this case just a call of the blind. The rule assumes an unintentional act of skipping a player so that we would expect the OOT player to have to made the same play if action doesn't change once the skipped player acts. However, it is reasonable to say that the OOT player may have made another choice if the player wasn't skipped and the action changes. Therefore, an OOT player is forced to make the play if action doesn't change but he is allowed to change his play if action does change . You deal with the intentional OOT players with penalties on repeat offenses thereby protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty.
This rule also goes along with what Nick has been saying: "why can't we just back things up to the proper player and go from there" (that is a parphrase, should be close). The reality is that we do back it up and let the skipped player make a decision with the information that if he changes action then the OOT player gets to do what he wants but that if he doesn't change the overall action then the play stands. It forces the OOT player to stay in sometimes but he was going to play anyway.
