playBunny: I agree with everything you said, except that awarding a backgammon when it is still possible seems conceptually clean to me (if not ideal, nor necessarily fair). In chess, if your opponent loses on time and you have one single pawn against an army, you still win the game (if you don't have the pawn, it's a draw).
But the way it is seems acceptable to me, and I certainly wouldn't make a bug record or feature request of it, since there are more important pending ones about backgammon.
nabla: In chess, if your opponent loses on time and you have one single pawn against an army, you still win the game (if you don't have the pawn, it's a draw
That is an interesting point. You tell me that In chess it's conditional, so why not backgammon? I wonder whether they'd change the rules if there were more than one point at stake? When resigning a chess game the player loses one point because that's the only option. That not the case in backgammon which is precisely why the question remains about when to award what.