Umpires: what would / can you do?

[HoosierCoach]

This weekend, there was a USSSA bracket game in which:

1. the team with a 5-4 lead was batting (home team)
2. there were 2 outs
3. time was close to expiring
4. the "visitor" team's coaches had been a little testy to blue
5. It was 8:30PM ~40 deg (COLD for our area)
6. All day blue lost track of outs / count and had to ask scorekeepers

On what appeared to be the 3rd strike, the batter and baserunner trotted off the field, the fielders were about 1/2 way to the dugout, when blue said it was only the 2nd strike, and that the count was now 1-2. Then of course arguments ensued, wasting another 3-5 minutes.
Play resumed, ONE pitch was thrown, a 'ball'. Blue then says "time's up, game over".

What I would like to know is obviously if time is expired, the game is called. BUT, if in fairness would it have been legal for blue to go ahead and let the girl finish her at-bat, and if she did not get out, call "game over", but if she got an out, allow another inning to be played?

[wadeintothem]

In drop dead games or when home is leading and time is up, I call it. Most of the time, I dont let the batter finish their at bat just for giggles. Times up.

[skahtboi]

The clock is just as much a factor as anything else in timed games. If the time was really close to expiring, the VC shouldn't have wasted "3-5 minutes" arguing the count. He should have questioned it, when told it was 1-2 again by the umpires, gone about the business of trying to get the batter out to start the new inning. Instead, he apparently chose to argue the time away. Shame on him.

Why, when time is up and a winner has been established, would anyone want to continue the game? Where is the fairness in that? The game is complete, the home team won. Would you want to play another inning, "in all fairness," if the winning run had just crossed the plate as time ran out? Would you even want to put another batter up to bat? Of course not.