Can someone pls explain how this is not a draw?

Hi, I (black) just played a 5 min blitz game. The clock ran out and I lost the game, despite having just gotten a queen. My opponent (white) won the game, despite only having a bishop and a blocked pawn. My question is - how was this not a draw vs. insufficient material? There was no way he could’ve checkmated me if there was time, since he only had the bishop and an unrealized, blocked pawn. Am I missing something?

6.9     Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023 
In this case your opponent can checkmate your king with a possible series of legal moves.
For example
1...Qb5 2 Bxb5 Kh3 3 Kf4 g3 4 Ba6 Kh2 5 Bb5 g2 6 Ba6 Kh1 7 Kg3 g1=B 8 Bb7#

Here is another proof that checkmate is possible

It's benefit of doubt, if there are materials for opponents that can mate you by anyway It's not a draw.

That is checkmate, but the pawn wasn't being used at all. If white's pawn wasn't there it would've been a draw by insufficient material, even if that mate with the bishop and king existed. I think it would've made more sense to use an example with the pawn promoting and checkmating, by black hanging his pawn with a4.

Explain this point. What do you mean by "no way"?

While I do not always agree with tygxc on his opinions, it makes sense this time.

Note that what you are actually trying to say is "it is impractical for the opponent to promote the pawn given the circumstances", and this is entirely different from "no way".

I'm not sure why I was downvoted, but to the person that did downvote it, you can ask a tournament director.

@8

Here is an even faster checkmate

White wins because of the black pawn, not because of the white pawn.
The bishop is sufficient material to checkmate.
This is what the Laws of Chess say:

6.9     Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Here several possible series of legal moves exist that checkmate the black king,
so black duly lost on time.

https://lichess.org/MTJStrrV lichess says its a win if pawn is gone

https://www.chess.com/game/live/69636975589 chess.com says draw

if black takes the pawn and flags

@10

I quoted the Laws of Chess above.
No site implements the Laws of Chess completely correct.
For a human it is straightforward to verify if "cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves" applies or not. It is very hard to program that correctly.

Yes, we know you can quote the Laws of Chess. You've done it multiple times.

But since the Laws of Chess don't apply in this case, why would you use that example?

@12
Of course the Laws of Chess apply.

Then why would it be a draw here, but a win on Lichess? Chess.com uses USCF rules, as far as I know. Would that not make it a different rule?

@14

"Then why would it be a draw here, but a win on Lichess?"
++ Because one implementation is closer than the other.

"Chess.com uses USCF rules, as far as I know."
++ No. Chess.com does not use USCF rules, but something more or less close.
The other site does not use the FIDE Laws of Chess, but something more or less close.

FIDE Laws of Chess apply worldwide, also in the U.S. Championship.

The position of the original poster is a win by any rules.

Bonus: another series of legal moves:

Do you have any proof that Chess.com doesn't use USCF rules? I've heard from multiple people that they do, so I'm not just going to take your word for it.

"FIDE Laws of Chess apply worldwide" but not on Chess.com. @BigDog2008 showed you that it was a draw on Chess.com. So again: why would you use FIDE rules if they don't apply in this case?

they had pawn which can be promoted to anything so its not a draw

Yes, the original post was a win. But what I said in my first post to you was it would've been better to use an example with the white pawn promoting, because if white's pawn wasn't there it would've been a draw.

So yes, I think this example is better than your other ones because it uses the pawn.

@16

"Do you have any proof that Chess.com doesn't use USCF rules?"
++ Yes. USCF uses some provision of a win in case of a forced series of moves leading to checkmate, which this site ignores.

"I've heard from multiple people that they do"
++ What you hear from multiple people is not always true.

"@BigDog2008 showed you that it was a draw on Chess.com" ++ It is not. Chess.com looks at the presence of the white pawn and thus makes it a white win on time.

"why would you use FIDE rules"
++ As they are the universal rules worldwide and in the U.S. Championship.

"The position of the original poster is a win by any rules but not on Chess.com, which is where he posted this."
++ Also on chess.com. Chess.com looks at the white pawn and concludes a white win.

By the way I got rid of my last sentence, because it didn't make sense.

In my first post I said it would've been a better example to use the white pawn to promote, because I said if the pawn wasn't there it would've been a draw.

So why should I believe you about the rules? I clearly can't believe other people in your opinion, so what do you have that they don't?

@20

"believe you about the rules?"
++ Look up the USCF rules and see for yourself.