There are a lot of “My dad said” or “My coach said” rules based on a brief glance, if at all, of the Rulebook. The 50 move draw rule has many variations, the most common of which is if a game has reached move 50, the game is drawn. Some young players ask if the game is drawn if they reach move 30 because that is when their school tournament games usually end.
I have been asked by players when games are to be adjudicated and are surprised when told that we do not adjudicate games. One player, having won a pawn, just sat there without moving, expecting the TD to adjudicate a win for him based on his edge. He was surprised when told to play on, because his coach told him this was what was done in tournament play. Two players without a clock on the game asked me if time delay still applied. There are players who write only their own moves down on the score sheet.
A rule often neglected is to mark your result on the pairing sheet. High rated players tend to ignore this as they are busy analyzing the game in a post mortem. Some think that the TD should mark the result for them, as after all they are too good to have to do such a mundane chore. Their results are usually marked for them where they come from is one explanation I have heard. Then they complain if the next round is late. They also have a tendency not to bring a clock, set, board, or a pen with them to the tournament. If they do bring a clock, it is a ratty looking BHB.
I have seen 0 move draws, draws negotiated before the game within earshot of a TD, and even offers to throw a game so that the opponent, who is a friend, will win a prize. I have had rulings to forfeit such players overruled by higher level TDs.
I doubt you will find a rule in the US Chess rulebook that requires marking the result on the pairing sheet.
Rules 15H and 29H cover the reporting of results and the penalties for the players for not reporting a result. The normal procedure is for each player to mark and/or check that the correct result is placed on the pairing sheet. As far as I can recall, this has always been true, from Harkness’ “Bluebook” until the present Rulebook. If players feel entitled to not mark their result, they risk a lot. ‘Post first, analyze later’ is a trivial but important detail for players to remember. TDs do not have to chase down results in USCF rated Swiss System events. I am well aware that we bend over backward in scholastic tournaments to get results and have special reporting procedures. But in the usual individual style tournament, players have responsibilities to themselves, to others, and to the TD(s) to follow the reporting rules.
The ‘normal procedure’ is not the same thing as the ‘required procedure’.
There are tournaments where the pairing sheet is not where results are to be reported, notably national events.
I’ve run tournaments where it was ANNOUNCED that results posted on the pairing sheet would be IGNORED, because the REQUIRED method was to turn in scoresheets signed by both players. (And, FWIW, I double-forfeited two players because they refused to turn in either player’s scoresheet of their game.)
Well, of course, in the high falutin tournaments, like FIDE events, there may be special procedures for the event requiring the turning in of score sheets and the use of them to determine results. That can be hard sometimes when no result is indicated and the moves are written in Cyrillic. The Rulebook stipulates that the players follow the rules of the event for recording results whatever they may be. Most of us do not play in or direct such special events. For us, the procedure we follow is to mark the result on the pairing sheet. Players who analyze after the game and fail to turn in results get what they get.
I, too, have forfeited players for not marking a result. After analyzing, they left the playing area to go to lunch and came back fashionably late to the next round, as was their normal custom. No one else knew the result of the game and I needed to make pairings. They were left out of the next round pairings and on the wall charts were marked as forfeiting for the previous round. Their excuse/explanation was that I should have known what their result was since they were high rated players. Since I am not clairvoyant, and had the evidence of a pairing sheet with empty spaces for the result, I told them that they failed to do what was required. Waiting for their highnesses to show up and deign to give their result was not an option as we had a tight schedule. To inconvenience everyone else in the tournament was a signature lack of respect to the other players. As there was no one else to pair them with, they were out of the round, but could be paired for the next round which was the last one. They were miffed and said that they would never play in a tournament at that club ever again. A club officer asked them if they would like to put that promise into writing. They showed up at the next tournament and made a point of marking their result and telling me the score.