Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Cafe Society (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   In Defense of Quidditch (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=866963)

Chronos 12-10-2018 06:01 PM

gaffa, have you never heard of people wearing a rubber band on their wrist, or the like, as a reminder that there's something they need to do? A Remembrall is just the magical equivalent of that.

Robot Arm 12-10-2018 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slow Moving Vehicle (Post 21370876)
No, it's the capture of the Golden Snitch being the automatic end of the game that makes Quidditch a nonsensical sport. As ebb pointed out, the Snitch being worth what it is, the proper strategy is to put one or two players, along with the keeper, in front of the goal to prevent the other team scoring at will, and using the rest of them to track and herd the Snitch to the Seeker. So long as you can keep the other team from scoring more than 15 times, you're going to win.

I don't think we can necessarily conclude that that's the optimum strategy. If one team dedicates a few players to help the seeker, they'll be outnumbered in the field. Maybe under those circumstances it's easy to run up the score by 200 before the snitch is even found.

The rules of quidditch are dumb, but I don't think we can draw conclusions about strategy from it.

Mahaloth 12-10-2018 06:38 PM

The Snitch should be a way to end the game, but not the only way. Like, have a time limit or a point threshold that has to be met.

I believe they say in the books that matches have lasted days. I mean, come on. #cricket

Petrobey Mavromihalis 12-10-2018 07:44 PM

It's almost as if the books aren't really that well written . . .

Yookeroo 12-10-2018 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21369849)
Sage Rat
Cheesesteak, yes, any individual quaffle score pales in comparison to the snitch, but that doesn't mean that all of the quaffle scores pale in comparison. Quite the opposite: Usually you'll have many times more points from quaffles than from the snitch.

That's not what's important. How often will it occur that one team is 15 goals behind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebb (Post 21370111)
3) Given the scoring system, it would seem to make more sense to take your team and split it between guarding all three hoops and running interference / surveillance for the Seeker. In other words, forget about scoring goals at all. Other than it seeming 'unsportsmanlike' there doesn't seem to be any thought to doing this.

Yeah. It wouldn't take long before a team started using their resources to help the seeker. Might even end up with the goals being ignored completely eventually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 21371007)
I don't think we can necessarily conclude that that's the optimum strategy. If one team dedicates a few players to help the seeker, they'll be outnumbered in the field. Maybe under those circumstances it's easy to run up the score by 200 before the snitch is even found.

I'd imagine you'd need three players to guard the hoops. The rest of the team could be committed to helping the seeker. If the score did get out of hand, say, a 10 goal deficit, you could go back to the "traditional" way. Of course it would probably only take a few days after the invention of the sport before this strategy was adopted, so it wouldn't be a tradition yet. Quidditch is broken.

Kimstu 12-10-2018 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yookeroo (Post 21371129)
Yeah. It wouldn't take long before a team started using their resources to help the seeker. Might even end up with the goals being ignored completely eventually.

Do we know that that would even be permissible by Quidditch rules?

I mean, sure, we can hypothetically think up all sorts of ways in lots of games for players to modify the action of play to increase their own advantage, like holding the ball and running with it in basketball or soccer. But players don't do these things because there are rules against them, or in some cases even just "spirit of the game" conventions against unsporting play.

So I'm not all that convinced by arguments that "Quidditch is a dumb game because players could just do X, Y or Z instead." Maybe they could, and maybe they couldn't.

asterion 12-10-2018 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahaloth (Post 21371037)
The Snitch should be a way to end the game, but not the only way. Like, have a time limit or a point threshold that has to be met.

I believe they say in the books that matches have lasted days. I mean, come on. #cricket

Even test cricket has a defined end based on outs and innings. ODIs and T20s are even shorter. Again, the problem is that it's not a game designed to make sense.

The same thing occurs with the monetary system. Setting aside the other obvious problems with the wizard economy, the crazy numbers are obviously meant to be a play on the pre-decimal pound. But the numbers make sense in a pre-decimal pound effectively based on an extended base-12 system (240 pence to the pound, 12 pence to the shilling, thus 20 shillings to the pound) and the weird names and subdivisions still made sense internally as part of the system, even if they're not intuitive to someone used to a decimal system. 29 knuts to the sickle and 17 sickles to the galleon have no obvious relationship, and in fact both are prime, meaning that there can be no easy division.

AK84 12-10-2018 09:54 PM

A cricket Test Match can last for days. In a game which is designed to go that far. You have discrete events which mark points on the road to the ending of the match, and you can easily tell how a game is going to go. A Cycling Tour can last for weeks, and again the continuation of events is obvious.
Quidditch? Yeah not so much. Losing 140-0 and the Snitch collides with your Seeker....you win.
Both Seekerscsuck...it’s week 7 and score is 2750 to 2690.

Just Asking Questions 12-10-2018 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petrobey Mavromihalis (Post 21371109)
It's almost as if the books aren't really that well written . . .

Shh...that's the Secret that Dare Not Speak Its Name.

gaffa 12-11-2018 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21370975)
gaffa, have you never heard of people wearing a rubber band on their wrist, or the like, as a reminder that there's something they need to do? A Remembrall is just the magical equivalent of that.

Equally stupid then?

Trafalgar Laura 12-11-2018 01:13 PM

Sometimes I wonder if aspects of the books couldn't be adequately explained by the idea that wizarding powers reduce your IQ.

DrDeth 12-11-2018 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebb (Post 21370111)

3) Given the scoring system, it would seem to make more sense to take your team and split it between guarding all three hoops and running interference / surveillance for the Seeker. In other words, forget about scoring goals at all. Other than it seeming 'unsportsmanlike' there doesn't seem to be any thought to doing this..

Except when Harry plays, it seems like most games go by without the Seeker being caught.

DrDeth 12-11-2018 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enalzi (Post 21370447)
They were down 160 points. When catching the Snitch gives you 150, it's hard to say you can't come back from that.

Since it ends the game, no you can't.

DrDeth 12-11-2018 01:39 PM

And heres the point- over all scores is what qualifies you for the tournaments, not how many games you have won.

enalzi 12-11-2018 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21372395)
Since it ends the game, no you can't.

You can come back by not catching the Snitch until you score two more goals.

Quercus 12-11-2018 02:19 PM

Objectively, here in the real world, quidditch is a ridiculous sport invented by a writer that knew nothing about sports to be a plot device for the hero.

But Chronos is doing impressive work in trying to find a way to ret-con it into a decent sport. I'll even add something:

Quidditch is better than most traditional ball/field sports because it doesn't have a clock. Therefore the end of a quidditch game doesn't devolve into a completely different game (like the intentional foul-a-thon at the end of a basketball game, or 'victory formation' American football, or watching a soccer player dribble around in the corner to burn time. To be fair, end-game hockey improves the overall sport, but that's a distinct minority among sports). No quidditch game ends with one team just trying to waste time for as long as possible in order to run out the clock.

asterion 12-11-2018 02:50 PM

Except that quidditch, as a primarily goal-oriented sport, needs a clock to stop the game (unless there's something like a mercy rule). In cricket, the limit is still two innings with 10 outs each side in test, generally 50 overs with 1 innings in an ODI, and only 20 overs with 1 innings in T20. Baseball is going to stop at some point, even if it takes an additional 9 innings to get there. Neither uses a clock, but instead an entirely different metric to end the game. Games like tennis use points scored to a defined win amount. Golf is the lowest score over a set number of holes. Goal-oriented games aren't designed to have a way to stop other than a clock. Having two other players play an entirely different game simultaneously that can end the first game without notice is a terrible design.

enalzi 12-11-2018 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion (Post 21372574)
Except that quidditch, as a primarily goal-oriented sport, needs a clock to stop the game (unless there's something like a mercy rule). In cricket, the limit is still two innings with 10 outs each side in test, generally 50 overs with 1 innings in an ODI, and only 20 overs with 1 innings in T20. Baseball is going to stop at some point, even if it takes an additional 9 innings to get there. Neither uses a clock, but instead an entirely different metric to end the game. Games like tennis use points scored to a defined win amount. Golf is the lowest score over a set number of holes. Goal-oriented games aren't designed to have a way to stop other than a clock. Having two other players play an entirely different game simultaneously that can end the first game without notice is a terrible design.

A better way would be the games end when a team scores so many points, lets say 300. That way catching the Snitch, giving you such a huge bonus would most likely give you the win, but not necessarily.

Chronos 12-11-2018 03:22 PM

Quote:

Quoth Yookeroo:

That's not what's important. How often will it occur that one team is 15 goals behind?
Probably pretty often, from what we know. Even at the highest levels of play, there's enough disparity between the players to build up that big a difference after only, what, an hour? In a match that lasts for literal days, you're probably not going to have a score like 870 to 800, where the Snitch will still determine the outcome. It'd probably be more like 1040 to 350, where it won't matter which team catches the Snitch, the team with 1040 (or possibly 1190) is still going to win.

As for the money system, my assumption was that they used to be on a pure specie system. There were gold, silver, and bronze coins all in circulation, all of about the same size, but that their values were determined by the values of those metals. As the values of metals shifted relative to each other, so too did the values of the coins. Eventually, society decided that that was too cumbersome, and so someone (the Ministry, or Gringott's, or whoever) froze the exchange rates, and said that what the relative values are right now is what they'll be forevermore, and at the moment they did that, gold just happened to be 17 times as valuable as silver, and silver 19 times as valuable as bronze.

Andy L 12-11-2018 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21370469)
Yeah, I will grant that Krum's losing catch was probably premature.

On the other hand, at the time the other team's Seeker was also really close to making the catch. Ideally, you'd try to interfere with his catch rather than snagging it yourself, but maybe Krum decided that he wouldn't be able to do that, and preferred losing by 10 to losing by 310.

Yeah. And if league standings depend partially on the margin of loss, grabbing the snitch to lose by 10, instead of attempting a block that could end up with a loss by 310 might be the right strategic move.

Now if you want a real sport with crazy rules, look at the game where both soccer teams tried to score against their own goals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbad..._qualification)

Sage Rat 12-11-2018 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21369849)
Sage Rat, I'm confused. First, you say that no one should care about high school level play (except, presumably, the high schoolers themselves). And then you say that the rules should be balanced around high school level play, even though nobody should care about it.

Those points aren't mutually exclusive. You're assuming rationality. The real world is not rational.

If you play high school basebal, every position on the field is useful and important. If you play professional baseball, then it becomes a "great battle between the batter and the pitcher". The professional level game is the way it is not because it was intended to be that way, the rules and field dimensions were just never rebalanced for professional play to maintain the feel of the game as it was when it was first developed, by amateurs.

If you play billiards, as a hobbyist, clearing the table is an immense achievement. If you play it as a professional, then the game stops being about one game and instead becomes a question of how many times you can clear the table before eventually messing up or getting bored. Same for bowling. Again, the issue is that the rules and field dimensions were determined by amateurs for amateur play and, rather than rebalancing the game to maintain the feel of the game as it was meant to be played for maximum fun of the game, the amateur rules and field size were largely maintained - causing the game to be played in a "broken" way.

With soccer, purportedly, in the professional game it is almost always a tie and the game has to be decided by a single kick at the end of a 0:0 game. I would assume that this is not how it usually plays out in amateur play nor how it played out when the rules and field dimensions were initially decided.

These games are not broken in the sense that the competition is unfair. The person/team who wins will be the person/team which was better than the other team. But they are broken in the sense that they're not being played the way the originators intended to maximize the feeling of fun and excitement for the players. All of the players should have a chance to shine.

In board games, there are some games that have multiple paths to victory - different ways of gaining victory points - with some being more risky but scoring higher, and others being more certain but scoring lower. The relative values are usually going to be based on play testing. If you play test with children, then the game will be balanced at the level of children and adults will probably find that one of the paths is a lot stronger than the other, and will simply go that way all of the time. And, just the same, if you balance the game for adults - but just normal, every day adults - then you get some hardcore high IQ gamers who approach the game with a calculator and an Excel spreadsheet, and they'll do the same thing, breaking the balance. The higher IQ player will still win over the lower IQ player, so it's still "fair" for them to play against each other, but if you look at the rules, it will be clear that they're ignoring whole chunks of the game and just focusing on a particular subset of styles of play, because the game wasn't balanced for this type of hardcore, high IQ play.

Most games and sports, in the real world, were play tested and balanced for amateur play - because that's more fun for more people. We have no reason to expect any difference in the Harry Potter universe. We should expect Quidditch to have a balanced score regardless of whether a team focuses on playing "Seeker-centric" or "General play-centric". If the game is unbalanced at the amateur level, then the game wouldn't have been very fun for your every day person. Everyone would just feel useless unless they were nominated to be the Seeker. That's no fun. And so the game wouldn't develop the ground support to become a popular pastime and wouldn't develop a professional level.

asterion 12-11-2018 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enalzi (Post 21372582)
A better way would be the games end when a team scores so many points, lets say 300. That way catching the Snitch, giving you such a huge bonus would most likely give you the win, but not necessarily.

Not a bad idea. Somewhat odd for a goal-scoring game, but sensible.

The game also seems to have no provision for breaking the rules, if there actually are any. Football uses yardage, soccer uses different kicks and the possibility of ejection, basketball uses free throws and disqualification, hockey mostly uses short periods of being shorthanded, and so on. Again, it's a sign of a sport being designed by someone who doesn't understand sports and didn't need to consider these things.

Chronos 12-11-2018 05:26 PM

Or at least, we don't know how rules violations are dealt with. Harry, of course, would never break the rules, so it's not very relevant from his point of view. The Slytherines do, of course, but they've also gotten very good at not getting caught.

DPRK 12-11-2018 05:30 PM

There is also the possibility that the author understood sports well enough, and was deliberately being satirical, or just wanted a "magical" through-the-looking-glass game with rules that sound crazy and far-out when you first hear them.

DrDeth 12-11-2018 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enalzi (Post 21372469)
You can come back by not catching the Snitch until you score two more goals.

But since the Snitch is so very hard to catch, you can by no means guarantee that, and of course he got some nice personal glory out of it anyway.

DrDeth 12-11-2018 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion (Post 21372574)
Except that quidditch, as a primarily goal-oriented sport, needs a clock to stop the game (unless there's something like a mercy rule).

Yes, at any time both captains can agree to call the game.

DrDeth 12-11-2018 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy L (Post 21372703)
Yeah. And if league standings depend partially on the margin of loss, grabbing the snitch to lose by 10, instead of attempting a block that could end up with a loss by 310 might be the right strategic move.

League standings are by total score, not games won, thus by nabbing a extra 105, he helped his team also.

Yookeroo 12-11-2018 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21371163)
Do we know that that would even be permissible by Quidditch rules?

How would you prevent that? You can have only the seeker catching the snitch, but commit others to helping the seeker find it and running interference on the opposing seeker. I suppose you could create a zone in front of the goals to prevent players from parking there. But even so, you could probably defend well enough that you can send one player to help the seeker. Then the opponent follows suit, so you send two to help...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21372678)
Probably pretty often, from what we know.

No we don't. Do we get much int the way of scores from league matches? Or international play? But if it does happen pretty often, you have a league with serious competitive balance issues. In, say, soccer, you don't find many leagues at any level that have common differentials that big.

Another sign that JKR doesn't understand sports: the World Cup final is a massive blowout. There's no way one team in the final is THAT much better than the other. It's ridiculous.

Andy L 12-11-2018 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yookeroo (Post 21373216)

Another sign that JKR doesn't understand sports: the World Cup final is a massive blowout. There's no way one team in the final is THAT much better than the other. It's ridiculous.

In 2014, a Worldcup semifinal match was 7-1 - now that's a blowout.

running coach 12-11-2018 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yookeroo (Post 21373216)
Another sign that JKR doesn't understand sports: the World Cup final is a massive blowout. There's no way one team in the final is THAT much better than the other. It's ridiculous.

Super Bowl XXIV 1990 55-10

CarnalK 12-11-2018 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 21373225)

Not sure that's really comparable to the World Cup.

Chronos 12-11-2018 10:39 PM

Heck, how many soccer World Cup games have been won by a score of 1-0? That's a far bigger blowout than any quidditch game we know of.

Snarky_Kong 12-12-2018 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21372678)
It'd probably be more like 1040 to 350, where it won't matter which team catches the Snitch, the team with 1040 (or possibly 1190) is still going to win.

Yes, and that makes for a really stupid sport.

If it's reasonable for a team to get ahead by >150 and they have a worse seeker then you have a never ending game of a shitty seeker that can't catch the snitch and one that can but doesn't want to.

Or, if it's rare to get a 150 point lead, then the rest of the game doesn't matter, which is even more stupid.

The snitch being completely unrelated to the rest of the sport is probably the dumbest thing though. Someone up thread said it pretty well, imagine you had a basketball game without a clock and it only stopped when the game of hide and seek being played in the parking lot ended. Might be 7 minutes into the game, might be in 135 hours. Basically the same thing as quiddich and incredibly dumb.

And winning by 1 score is not a bigger blowout than quiddich games...

You don't like sports, right Chronos?

RickJay 12-12-2018 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yookeroo (Post 21373216)
Another sign that JKR doesn't understand sports: the World Cup final is a massive blowout. There's no way one team in the final is THAT much better than the other. It's ridiculous.

There are any number of examples of highest level championship finals being massacres. Sports are like that. You can be good enough to make it there but just have a really bad day.

Cheesesteak 12-12-2018 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 21373751)
There are any number of examples of highest level championship finals being massacres. Sports are like that. You can be good enough to make it there but just have a really bad day.

However, if the games are routinely blowouts, your game is not well suited as a spectator sport. Generally, it's preferable to have games be close so the tension exists for spectators.

The extreme value of the snitch means that the game is usually winnable by either side, even if the quaffle action is mismatched. That retains the uncertainty needed to make a spectator sport interesting, but devalues the quaffle centered gameplay.

The snitch centered play is inherently less interesting than the quaffle because it's a 1 on 1 match to find and catch a tiny fast moving object. If the seekers can't see the snitch, neither can the spectators. There is little interaction with the other players, and little strategy involved.

Chronos 12-12-2018 09:54 AM

Quote:

Quoth Snarky Kong:

If it's reasonable for a team to get ahead by >150 and they have a worse seeker then you have a never ending game of a shitty seeker that can't catch the snitch and one that can but doesn't want to.
One would almost expect, given a sport like that, that a culture of etiquette would develop around the sport that would lead to a Seeker catching the Snitch if he can, even if it loses his team the game. Which is exactly what we see.
Quote:

You don't like sports, right Chronos?
Not particularly, no. Which lets me dispassionately see how real-world sports are just as illogical, but that people don't care, because they've gotten used to the illogic of their favored sports.

muldoonthief 12-12-2018 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21373908)
One would almost expect, given a sport like that, that a culture of etiquette would develop around the sport that would lead to a Seeker catching the Snitch if he can, even if it loses his team the game. Which is exactly what we see.

Not particularly, no. Which lets me dispassionately see how real-world sports are just as illogical, but that people don't care, because they've gotten used to the illogic of their favored sports.

There's a major difference between saying "All sports are illogical in some way" (which I as a sports fan, absolutely agree with) and saying "This fictional sport is no more illogical than every other real sport in existence."

ISiddiqui 12-12-2018 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21373292)
Heck, how many soccer World Cup games have been won by a score of 1-0? That's a far bigger blowout than any quidditch game we know of.

What in the world? This comment makes literally no sense. It only works if you are misusing %s (and even then it doesn't really).

Quercus 12-12-2018 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion (Post 21372574)
Except that quidditch, as a primarily goal-oriented sport, needs a clock to stop the game (unless there's something like a mercy rule).

Why? As you noted, baseball, tennis, cricket, golf and others don't have clocks.

Serious basketball figures have (more or less seriously) proposed that a basketball game end at a random time (e.g. the final buzzer goes off randomly between 11 minutes and 14 minutes), to avoid late-game degeneracy. Many turn-based computer, card, and board games do implement a random game-ending mechanism to avoid strategic last-turn weirdness.

Why does Quidditch need a clock? It's not like baseball has disappeared because nobody can predict the end of the game to within a minute or two. Heck, this year a World Series game covered two calendar days!

CarnalK 12-12-2018 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quercus (Post 21374074)
Why? As you noted, baseball, tennis, cricket, golf and others don't have clocks.

Not a clock, but some solid end point. Baseball has 9 innings. Golf has 18 holes. Tennis has 3 or 5 sets. They only go longer in the case of a tie, just like clocked games. I can think of no sport that has such an open ended finish line as Quidditch.

CarnalK 12-12-2018 11:57 AM

The only thing I can think of is days of yore boxing matches that required a knockout. But even that is more reasonable because the limits of the human body will ensure someone will fall down eventually. Quidditch is the opposite because the catching of the snitch gets harder as the players weary.

Andy L 12-12-2018 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarnalK (Post 21374197)
The only thing I can think of is days of yore boxing matches that required a knockout. But even that is more reasonable because the limits of the human body will ensure someone will fall down eventually. Quidditch is the opposite because the catching of the snitch gets harder as the players weary.

Maybe the Snitch gets bored or tired over time, too?

CarnalK 12-12-2018 12:49 PM

If part of the rules of Quidditch were that the snitch eventually gets bored and just sits in the middle of the field, that would indeed mitigate the ridiculousness. But that would essentially be a time limit on the game.

Is there an actual rule that only the seeker can grab it btw? If the snitch screwed up evading the seeker and accidentally rammed straight into another player's hand, would that end the game? Can the seeker score normal goals?

Snarky_Kong 12-12-2018 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21373908)
Not particularly, no. Which lets me dispassionately see how real-world sports are just as illogical, but that people don't care, because they've gotten used to the illogic of their favored sports.

Sort of like how someone that hates food can dispassionately assess that everyone should eat Soylent for all their meals.

asterion 12-12-2018 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarnalK (Post 21374171)
Not a clock, but some solid end point. Baseball has 9 innings. Golf has 18 holes. Tennis has 3 or 5 sets. They only go longer in the case of a tie, just like clocked games. I can think of no sport that has such an open ended finish line as Quidditch.

And, as I said, a goal-oriented game. All such games have as their base objective putting some object in or through a specific area or object. The specifics can vary widely and it becomes more complicated as additional ways to tally points are introduced (soccer vs the rugby family, basketball having three different values for shot difficulty, and so on) but what they all have in common is that a clock is used to define the end of the game. At its heart, quidditch is effectively the same as soccer or hockey. Each goal is worth a set amount, no matter how the goal was scored. Now, the game could be set to a total point value instead, which would be uncommon for a goal game but not unreasonable. After all, many two-player games exist that use a score endpoint, such as foosball, air hockey, one-on-one basketball, and so on where the way to score is by a goal but the game is only played to a certain number.

The snitch as it exists simply cannot be defended as it's terrible game design.

CarnalK 12-12-2018 01:32 PM

Yeah, much of the silliness could actually be solved immediately without nullifying the seeker's importance by a win being defined as "first to 150". That way the seeker still wins the game for you if he grabs it but still allows an end point if both teams have shitty seekers.

Wallaby 12-12-2018 02:51 PM

Apart from the Snitch, there is nothing inherently wrong with Quidditch. It's another game where players use teamwork to move the scoring object (usually a ball - here the quaffle) through their set of goals, and prevent the other team from doing the same to them. Soccer, Rugby, American football, basketball - same idea, with variations. Add to that the idea of players being able to fly and it is an interesting 'thought' experiment.

The snitch just destroys any scoring logic behind the game.

Quercus 12-12-2018 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarnalK (Post 21374171)
Not a clock, but some solid end point. Baseball has 9 innings.

Except when it doesn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_World_Series#Game_3

I still don't understand the argument that a clock is necessary. Yes, the top three or four currently most popular goal-scoring ball/puck/etc games do have clocks (until it's tied when the clock goes off), but so what?

Yes, not having a clock sort of theoretically leaves open the possibility that the two teams could play forever, but that's true of baseball, overtime college tackle football, overtime playoff NFL football, and every other sport with open-ended tie-breakers. Theoretically soccer and hockey could have infinitely long shootouts, (even theoretically overtime basketball) So having the theoretical possibility of playing indefinitely long hardly seems to have eliminated any of these top sports as being a real sport. What is the real problem with a game-ending mechanism that makes the players play hard right right up to the end of the game, instead of the last few minutes being an intentional time-wasting demonstration or otherwise a travesty of the regular game?

Yes, if games are typically so low-scoring (compared to the amount of time to get the snitch) that catching the snitch nearly always gets the win, yes it's a bad game. Nobody disagrees with that. But if in most games quaffle goals are significantly more than the snitch value, what is wrong with having the snitch end the game? (in fact, if league standings are determined by total points, rather than won-loss, it sets up a lot of interesting strategical decisions..)

kanicbird 12-12-2018 04:27 PM

It also may be playable by humans, this sport could be done in a microgravity habitat, such as a inflatable module attached to the ISS, and some devices used to propel players shaped like broomsticks. The golden snitch could be a drone like flyer.

Here is another version of that: https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...lived-in-space

Just Asking Questions 12-12-2018 04:33 PM

So many people seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the last two minutes of a football game. Taking a knee and running out the clock isn't "time wasting", it's sportsmanship. For the team with the ball, the game is already won - moving the ball or scoring again is "running up the score". It's pointless, and just pisses players off. As for time wasting - it takes two minutes, exactly.

If, on the other hand, the team behind has the ball, they do everything they can to score at the end. And that involves clock management. It's very exciting to watch a team try to drive the length of the field in under two minutes, and not run out of time.

Neither one is "time wasting".

Baseball, yes, can theoretically go on forever, but games over 5 hours are so rare as to be noteworthy. the longest game ever was 8 hours. Not "days" like Quiddich.

Basketball has no defined end, either but OT games in excess of three OT periods are very rare. The longest ever was 6 OT periods. Again, not days.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.