Five years ago, on this very forum, Dmitriy raised a salient issue about the potentially ambiguous interpretation of "gin positions" in the rules, supported by five examples.
The following position is Dmitriy's fifth example, and below that are some comments:
                       |
| ||||
| XGID=-AABCCD------------A---de-:1:-1:1:53:0:0:0:13:10 | |||||
| Blue to play 53 | |||||
This little anecdote amused me for a few reasons. First, that the opponent would get even mildly enraged over such a trivial matter. Second, it occurred to me that the opponent might have been angry at himself for squandering time instead of saving it.
Third, the opponent's offer of "no gammon" could, in an equity sense, only injure himself. I'm imagining a scenario in which Dmitriy responds, "nah, let's just roll it out" because he doesn't want to be bothered with figuring it out, the opponent grumpily plays 19/11, Dmitriy takes two checkers off, and his temporarily disgruntled opponent, crying all the way to the bank, then proceeds to roll four big doublets in a row to win the game.
(Note that the same claim-of-no-gammon-and-ponder sequence of events could have occurred if venerable Opp had rolled 7 pips instead of 8. In that case, three results would still have been possible: loss of gammon, loss of game, or winning the game.)
Anytime (or at least some of the time) a claim/suggestion/proposal of gin is made, then arguably it is the same as offering a settlement. Are settlements legal in match play?
To put this conundrum into better context, and to look through Dmitriy's other examples, read Dmitriy's post. Additional discussion can be found by scrolling to the bottom of that post and clicking on other messages in the thread.
Nack