Ruling: Do these chips play?

[youtalkfunny]

I never saw this one before. I don't agree with the ruling given by the floor, but I don't feel certain that I'm right, either.

$3-6 limit. Player in the 10-seat has $4 left, after losing the hand. He pulls out his wallet as the dealer is shuffling, and says, "Dealer, I need a rack of white."

Dealer calls for chips. A chip runner appears instantly, takes the player's money, and heads for the cashier to buy the chips.

Everybody pays $3 to see the flop. When the action on the flop gets to Seat 10, he tosses in his last chip, and says, "I'm all-in for $1."

The dealer stops the action, needing a moment to try to decide how to handle this. He wastes no time in deciding to call the floorman over.

While waiting for the floorman to arrive, the chip runner returns with Seat 10's rack of chips.

How do you rule? Does this player get all-in protection, or does his $100 play this hand?

Floorman's decision, and my dissent, in white:

<font color="white">The floorman asked the dealer if the player's $100 bill was ever on the table. No, it went from his wallet, to the chip runner's hands. In that case, ruled the floor, that $100 is not in play.

Seat 10 voiced his agreement with the ruling, indignant that his actions were ever called into question.

I thought this was a bad ruling. In my opinion, ordering an amount of chips from the dealer, puts that amount in play immediately. If he had sent his wife to the cashier to get him chips, or even the chip runner, then no, they wouldn't play unless put on the table before the hand started. But by telling the dealer that he was buying $100 chips, while the dealer is shuffling, makes it clear that he wants those chips in play for the upcoming hand. Involving the dealer in the transaction means he's $100 behind.

If the dealer had announced before the hand, "Seat 10 is $100 behind," would he have been wrong? Of course not. If that's the case, then Seat 10 is $100 behind, whether the dealer announced it or not.
</font>