Sometimes I wonder if aspects of the books couldn’t be adequately explained by the idea that wizarding powers reduce your IQ.
Except when Harry plays, it seems like most games go by without the Seeker being caught.
Since it ends the game, no you can’t.
And heres the point- over all scores is what qualifies you for the tournaments, not how many games you have won.
You can come back by not catching the Snitch until you score two more goals.
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.
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.
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.
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 Barbados 4–2 Grenada - Wikipedia
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, at any time both captains can agree to call the game.
League standings are by total score, not games won, thus by nabbing a extra 105, he helped his team also.
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…
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.
In 2014, a Worldcup semifinal match was 7-1 - now that’s a blowout.