[Karthik Nagarajan Venkatataramani] As an SM I am not an authority to extend or reduce or take any action on the sprint. It will always be a collaborative decision taken based on the team's needs. So first I will set the tone of the conversation based on the request the team placed. Secondly, I will have a conversation around why a spill over is not acceptable from their end instead of extending the sprint duration. Next, we will sit as a team to review why the situation has occurred (inspect) and make a better plan for the next sprint. Communicate the delay if any to relevant stakeholders. Keep the team motivated by a new set of actions and call outs on what the team had accomplished.

[Saheil Sarkar] In Scrum, we set time limits on all our events for good reasons. As the Scrum Master, it's vital for me to grasp these reasons even before my teams do. Currently, we won't extend our ongoing sprint; it will conclude as planned. However, during our retrospective, we'll discuss what made the team believes that time, might be the root cause of our challenges.
Sprint length decision lie on few external factors as well.These include questions like how quickly we need feedback, whether our customers can afford to wait if we extend the time, and if it will affect our budget. As a Scrum Master, my role is to guide the team in understanding these critical factors.
I've observed some teams smoothly transition from 2-week to 4-week sprints, while others adopt longer sprints but mainly engage in productive work during the last two weeks. It's imperative to uncover the true reasons behind these changes. During our discussion, we'll thoroughly assess factors and can decide increase length will enhance our ability to deliver

[Poorani Srinivasan] I look at sprint like a running race that we all do/ did as children. Irrespective of who runs or what the issue is, we dont alter the length from 100 meters to 80 or 120 meters. Instead, it makes sense to finish the sprint as agreed, do the retrospective meeting at the end of it and understand what went wrong or how we could avoid it in future. What could happen in the retro is that the team may find that structurally they want to adapt from a 2 week to a 3 week sprint, for example. Then that may be agreed upon going forward - but changing the duration for one sprint alone does not make sense.

Also typically, if the scrum team were effective, the impediments should have been discussed in the daily sprint and agreed upon with PO on the possibility of less delivery against committed.

[Poorani Srinivasan] I look at sprint like a running race that we all do/ did as children. Irrespective of who runs or what the issue is, we dont alter the length from 100 meters to 80 or 120 meters. Instead, it makes sense to finish the sprint as agreed, do the retrospective meeting at the end of it and understand what went wrong or how we could avoid it in future. What could happen in the retro is that the team may find that structurally they want to adapt from a 2 week to a 3 week sprint, for example. Then that may be agreed upon going forward - but changing the duration for one sprint alone does not make sense.

Also typically, if the scrum team were effective, the impediments should have been discussed in the daily sprint and agreed upon with PO on the possibility of less delivery against committed.