Press conference

Lihuanian federation accomplished its challenge!
Also, new rule added.
Read more in news.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
What happen if sometimes users take risk for give more minute to younger players looking for better training? What make you sure someone deliberately wanna lose a game? Which criterio? -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Is it allowed to experiment new tactics? What if i lose a winnable game because i played "fast break often"?
We cannot make ineffective trade, I know.
But am I not helping a team by lending players as well?
If I receive multiple requests to borrow, by choosing one of the teams I'm showing favoritism, isn't it collusion as well? -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
In some cases it is very obvious that team does not try to win. For example:
http://www.bballzone.net/lt/Rungtynes-aprasymas-11165126.htm

We will need discuss, what to do with not such obvious cases:
http://www.bballzone.net/forum/fair-play-team-trades-volunteers-t13485.html -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Frankebasta:
Sometimes teams have players just to lend for friends in lower divisions. But this is quite a rare thing and I do not expect that we will see many such cases. -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Why should he have done that on purpose? What did he gain? Should we care for his motives?

Everybody here punts games, usually to reach game3 of a playoff series.

I may also choose to play my backups against a superior team on the road in order to protect them from injuries (like San Antonio and other teams do in real life).

Or to hide my game strategy in the road game, and try for an upset win at my home in the return match.

If I want to play 5 players for 40 minutes, to earn more training and experience, and I will use loose defense and Passive Offense (a-darius told me to do so, in order to avoid Foul-outs), what's wrong with that? -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Captain Obvious, tai nepatiks :D -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
If I don't need to win this game,I want trained young player,i will loss ,but i don't help another -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
For games that are lost intentionally, the best penalty would be a technical loss to the team which won (the weaker one) and financial penalty for the stronger team (increase 5-10 fold every time if repeated). The most obvious cases are when teams with very few losses get crushed at home by a team which is competing for 3-4th places in the group. In quite many of such scenarios, only bench players play, positions might be mixed up (C playing as starting PG) or many players are set to loose defence etc. So such cases are quite easily identified, while for others I think we should wait and see. -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
游戏就是游戏，它需要娱乐性，太多无谓规则，让它变得无聊。 -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
Nice improvement, I think it helps to maintain the fairness of the game -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Both teams should get technical loses. And fans should be unhappy about that so they should lose some fans and some popularity points -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+3
I will remain cautiously optimistic about this new rule. However, I prefer to see the rules of execution without distinction, rather than selective enforcement. This problem is always in the game. When you want to raise objections and refute my statement, please feel your conscience. -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
Technical loss, that’s the NBA thing, and BBZ is similar to NBA, isn’t it? Some times we need to lose the game for avoiding against the team which is better than us in the first round in the playoffs. -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
In NBA you lose to get better chances in draft lotery for higher pick :) and you try to win more to have home court advantage in playoffs :) so your NBA comparisson for losing is not relevant :) as here teams lose so team from same country could advance into top16 or playoffs :)) -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+4
I will remain cautiously optimistic about this new rule. However, I prefer to see the rules of execution without distinction, rather than selective enforcement. This problem is always in the game. When you want to raise objections and refute my statement, please feel your conscience. -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
I would like to see the most obvious attempts to help another team (from one's country) to advance into the next round. The rest may be too tough to judge. -- 64 S 27 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+1
Is that situation always happen? -- 64 S 28 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
I am confused about the two responses above as they are word by word the same response... :/ -- 64 S 28 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+6
I will remain cautiously optimistic about this new rule. However, I prefer to see the rules of execution without distinction, rather than selective enforcement. This problem is always in the game. When you want to raise objections and refute my statement, please feel your conscience. -- 64 S 28 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+0
Man, I am even more confused with the comment above now. Lol -- 64 S 38 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+4