We can call it biased, but in the case brought up, it is the literal reason.
There is, let’s say, an end to the game that a large fraction of experienced players can agree to is the “end” of the game. Those players would just pass and score the game.
The absolute time player wants to play to that end, no matter what, because it’s only that end that is reasonable to accept, because time is a resource. It doesn’t matter who is winning until that end is reached and both players have time remaining on their clock.
The anti-stalling feature can end this kind of game prematurely, as it can end other games prematurely - see
That’s the drawback, games that are “decided” can be ended early.
We would like to reduce that if possible, but we also want to be able to keep the purpose of the whole feature, to allow players that are winning to end the game when their opponent refuses to play sensibly anymore. That could mean, filling in territory, refusing scoring, or, and I would argue it is stalling in the literal sense of the word “stalling”, changing how you play to troll the opponent and prevent ending the game by not resigning, scoring, passing or filling the borders.
It doesn’t even have to be efficiently filling the borders.