What kind of delegates do we have out there? 
This isn’t a good idea at all, and should be retracted. A player shouldn’t be able to win a game by making an illegal move. An illegal move is much easier to find than one which is legal and good, and the opponent may lose an undetermined amount of time before realizing the illegality, and making a claim.
Quote/read the entire rule before you go hunting heads.
7e unravels which claim (illegal move or time) has precedence (answer = whichever claim made first). 7e also stipulates that the illegal move claim has precedence over the time claim if the two claims are “simultaneous.”
It also reinforces 7d. A claim has to be made for an illegal move to lose. It’s not like checkmate or stalemate that automatically ends the game.
I agree more with Terry here, but the question exposes a larger problem with the rules governing illegal moves.
Suppose player A makes a long “diagonal” move with the bishop, but it ends up on an adjacent diagonal, changing from a light-square bishop to a dark-square bishop.
Player B doesn’t notice, and makes another move.
Player A then administers checkmate with a legal queen move, defended by the errant bishop. Legal checkmate ends the game, right? – even though, in this case, the legal queen move wouldn’t have been checkmate except for the previous illegal move.
This sort of possibility creates all sorts of possibilities for dirty tricks.
The rule regarding illegal moves should be changed to allow Player B to call Player A’s illegal move anytime up to the completion of Player B’s second move following Player A’s illegal move – even if checkmate has occurred in the interim.
IMHO this would work well, either with the present “illegal move loses” blitz rule, or with any lesser penalty that may be decreed in future versions of the blitz rules.
Bill Smythe
The bolded quote above, which may clarify a rule for you, has nothing to do regarding the reason for my post, hence, quoting the entire passage wasn’t needed; I also intentionally left the rest out so you could check yourself 
Also, as a Senior TD who has been around the block a bit, I do know the difference between required claims and check/stalemate. I also understand that a player has to claim an illegal move in order for the TD to rule a win.
The rule above legitimizes illegal moves causing flag falls, and this is that for which I take issue.
The entirety of 7e supports your / our view that “making illegal move to try to win on time” is complete funny business. As a Senior TD who has “been around the block” then you presumably have the experience to deny the time claim when you know the guy made a deliberate illegal move to flag his opponent. Propose an ADM to change the rule for the better.
Perhaps you thought this comment was cute or amusing. It’s not. As I read it you’re being a jerk.
No, that wasn’t the intention, and I apologize. I meant to say “…so one could check it out for themselves.”
Yes, I would tend to deny it, and add time back to the player who flagged, but would I be in violation of the rule? I would say that the player who made the illegal move, whether intentional or not, could have a valid appeal claim.
Please understand that intent isn’t a big part of my concern. Intentional or not, it’s a bad rule.
I suppose, if I knew, for a fact, that the illegal move was intentional, in order to abide by the rules, I could uphold the flag claim, give the win to the illegal move player, and then penalize him for conduct unbecoming.
I wish people would quit saying this, as if they deem the question unworthy of discussion.
Previous clarification was helpful, thank you.
The ADM comment is an attempt to clarify what should be changed. It is not intended to be dismissive or derisive. Saying “this should be changed” with no suggested direction makes the conversation more difficult. Even draft language moves the discussion forward. This is a challenging rule.
Current rule allows a time claim to take precedence over an illegal move claim. Would you suggest that the rule be changed to, “an illegal move ends the game and this need not be claimed?” That would render flag claims moot. It would also require a corollary rule that address all half moves after the illegal move (since technically all subsequent moves are also illegal).
I would have to think about it some more, but off the top of my head, I would simply move that 7e be stricken from the rules. If we had to spell it out, I suppose the following language could be useful:
Why would you add time when a valid illegal move claim ends the game? This is a tough one. I certainly see your point where someone could deliberately make an illegal move to flag their opponent with dwindling time. But, when does it end? If the opponent truly doesn’t notice the illegal move and simply spends too much time on the next move, is it justifiable to claim the illegal move after his flag has fallen and claimed?
Both points well taken. It seems odd that we would condone illegal moves by having this rule.
I’d like to propose the following for discussion.
Purport: An illegal move should not be available as a way to win on time.