By definition, a player is all-in - "When you have put all of your playable money and chips into the pot during the course of a hand." as per Robert's Rules of Poker.
BillM summed it up in the other thread:
"Everyone knows that pushing all of your chips into the pot is an all-in bet unless you CLEARLY declare otherwise."
Uniden32,
I did say that in the context of the thread
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1259.0. In that thread, I also pointed out that "technically it was a call" according to the literal interpretation of the rules. The difference IMO is found in the more complete context give in the previous thread compared to the sparse information that is given in this thread. In the previous case, I would rule that the player was all-in given the size of the blinds, his silent push of his relatively small stack, his maintained silence when the next player called his all in bet, his continued silence when the next player raised ... and then finally when it got back to him ... what appears to be an angle-shooting attempt to claim he wasn't all in. Any player who knows the "technical rule" would also know that he is obligated to clarify his bet when the next player called the "incorrect" amount. (Of course, a better dealer could have helped.) I often overrule a technical rule whenever there is substantial evidence of angle-shooting. That is how I interpreted the scenario in the previous thread.
This thread presents a different situation without any evidence of angle-shooting - therefore the written rule should stand. If you do not think angle-shooting was involved in the previous thread - then making it a call is reasonable.
Additionally, I would support a discussion at the next Summit on the question of the silent "gesture" all in move. The notion of recognized gestures - such as checking by tapping the table - has been recently added. Shoving all of your chips silently is USUALLY all-in and could be discussed. However, having studied the history of the TDA, I'm not confident that this would win majority support given the departure from longer standing rules. The fact that RROP has this as a written definition of All In, in the Glossary, is a plus (in regard to cash games). But, that is not the same as an established rule.
Finally, this is yet another of those situations that could have been easily resolved by: a) verbal declaration, and b) the use of an All In Button. If the dealer puts an All In Button out there and the player doesn't immediately complain - he is undoubtedly all in.
Regards,
B~