The situation described in OP is way closer to one where you shuffle chips and a couple roll over the line. Have you ever seen someone held to a call or forfeiture of those chips for that?

The guy is too drunk to play and the dealer should have addressed that way before that hand even started. Because of him being impaired, his hands are a couple inches away from where they are supposed to be. Remove him from the table after the hand but don’t make him call in a situation where nobody thinks he’s called yet.

I was simply asking what the particular rule set was at the room where this happened, to establish the baseline as to whether an exception to a rule is required or not. As to the issue of the guy being unable to realize what he is doing, I oftensee a paradox there. If he is so incapacitatedt that he should not be held to a particular rule, then how could you hold him to any decision he makes, like a verbal call or bet? Why is the hand not stopped and action declared void due to his incapacitation? We know its because people generally are fine with an incapacitated drunk as long as he is shedding his money.

I dont know where you got the info about him just placing his hand a "couple of inches in the wrong spot". I didntsee that in the OP. I thought he deliberately moved his hands all the way into the betting area to wherehe was spreading the pot. That's not like he accidently sethis hand down an inch over a line.

But again, I was just trying to clarify what the actual rules are before offering an opinion on what if any exception should have been made.

I have never and would not do it. And I have only seen it done where I believe it was incidental or accidental, but yes that is what they rule. There is no forward motion.

Btw none of this means I like the rule. I prefer no bet line with forward motion as the rule. But I am not God Emperor of poker so I don’t get a direct vote.

Was it cleared up here just what the villain was doing? I'm reading it like he had stacks in both hands with his chips touching the table, and he was also spreading around the main, massive pot, but the nobody is saying anything until the OP asks if it's a call? That seems suboptimal.

And I'm guessing at least 2:00am?

Wow, that was the common rule many years ago. But I think it's pretty uncommon today.
When I learned to play poker, there were no bet lines, and you could reach forward with chips in your hand, and then pull them back (double-pumping) without being held to a bet. You could even (in some games) actually touch the table with the chips, and not be held to a bet unless you actually released chips into the pot. But that was a long time ago (and all private games, not public rooms).
It did teach players to relax and wait until action was finished before reacting, though, which is still good advice today.

Is poker the only game where “superior knowledge of the rules” is an angle shoot?

Since there is no single set of rules that is authoratative across the many venues, yes. Using an idiosyncratic rule of a specific room to create misleading action is an angle.

Let's coin another term, eh ... "The line of commitment?" ...

IMO most of the rooms I play in would enforce at least a call if a Player 'knowingly' brought chips into the 'betting area'. Per the technical rules I believe releasing chips is the actual 'commitment' to at least a call. Notice I said 'at least' a call (or bet) ...

Angle #1: River first to act brings out a stack and opponent says 'call'. Bettor drops one chip and says 'you win'. 'Technically' bettor could say 'check', action is on you and bring the chips back to stack.

Angle #2: Facing a bet a Player brings out a stack of chips and starts cutting them out. Before completing action opponent says 'call'. Bettor now says 'all-in' or 'pot' before completing the cutting action. In my main room since the verbal declaration was completed before the cutting out of the chips the verbal is the binding action.

I believe the Floors lean heavily towards 'for the good of the game' decisions and in the OP's case I don't think they would enforce a call as described. Since (as described) it was all part of the ongoing 'table talk' and not necessarily to get a read on the OP I would be 'very' less inclined to force a call and allow the Player to continue to work towards a more definitive completed action. GL