Perpetual Check question

I just encountered an interesting situation (see image) while playing my nephew.  The situation was he was three pawns up and I was looking for a way of forcing a draw.

I got him to move a pawn to f2 so that my king was trapped but not in check.  I then was able to continually check him with my Rook so my Rook was adjacent to him.  If he took my Rook it would be stalemate.

So the situation is that it's not officially perpetual check because he can theoretically take my Rook, but in practice he won't do that because it's an instant Statement if he does. So should I be able to claim a draw in this situation if he didn't take my Rook or accept a draw?  In practice I offered a draw and he accepted after some discussion.  Thoughts?

If your opponent doesn't agree that it's a draw then you have to get the draw by triple repetition of position, 50 moves with no captures, or eventually get the stalemate by capturing.

There can't be anything "official" about perpetual check. It's never mentioned in the rules. The scenario of perpetual check is handled by either of two rules: 1) triple repetition of position; 2) 50-move rule. If he never captures your rook one of these 2 rules will eventually apply at some moment.

Thanks for the replies - I think this clears it up, I misunderstood the rules.

Just to be clear - this was a real game. @long_quach - you may be missing the possibility that I'm not very good at chess :-). Either way was such an aggressive reply really appropriate?