Quidditch Points System is Stupid

Yes - I would say that you have to be quite a fan of Harry Potter to have a view on Quidditch.

I think it is a great rule. I liked that Krum caught the snitch at the world cup to end the game on his terms.

I've always thought this.

While JKR is a woman of many talents, making up sports isn't one of them. I guess you can't be good at everything.

It's not really criticism though, just a bit of fun.

And, yes, of course it was just a few moments' thought to sketch out the details of a game in a kids' story. I guess that's why the various elements in the game have such silly, jokey names.

The (very real) pleasures of the whole sequence of potterbooks were eroded by the massive over-hype of what was just a charming-but-derivative children's story. But that's how publishing goes, these days.

When JKR wrote Philosphers Stone she had no idea it was going to be one of the most traditional (and over analysed) books of modern times. It was just meant for children

Now she can barely breathe without being criticised.

This is a good point, it's all chaotic and haphazard.

Yes - catching the snitch should be worth 30 - 50 points. Definitely worth having but not the be all and end all of the game.

I always thought it should be that catching the snitch should end the game OR be worth something like 50 points and the game last an hour or whatever., a d can only be caught once in the game.

That way it makes more sense to me.

Having it end the game, it's a bit more skill in working out how and when to catch the snitch (especially as scores seem to influence if you win the championship. Eg if you score 100 all year, you're ranked from that)

Having it be worth 50 points makes it more exciting/tactical, do you try and get it asap and secure those points, or try and protect it and save till the end to snatch victory away from the opposition or whatever.

I watched philosophers stone on Sunday and said the exact same thing. What's the point of getting your head bashed by the big ball or a bat if Harry Potters just got to catch the ball to win? He's got the Nimbus 2000, it was bound to happen.

In a world in which Harry is the hero it allows, even in a team game, him to be the most important without even trying by virtue of position.

People who have been playing for year pale into insignificance next to our hero.

I think it adds excitement. And it highlights how magic causes sudden change to careful human planning...

I'd be much more likely to watch sports if there was the possibility of absolute change at the drop of a hat, even if play was shocking and unevenly matched. Sounds much more fun.

But you don't need the snitch to win!

Ireland won, even when Krum got the snitch for Bulgaria...

The snitch guy is called the seeker, you heathen! 😛

The magical world is rather arbitrary and dangerous though. It fits with the rest of it.

Oooh yes - so regardless of the ‘truth’, a snitch always wins?

It seems absurd, as has been rightly pointed out, BUT... an AI overview from my phone gives the following: 🪄🧹🧙🏀

"You can win Quidditch without catching the Snitch by scoring more goals than the opposing team before the Snitch is caught, or by ensuring the final point total is higher than the other team's even after the Snitch is caught. The team that catches the Snitch gains 150 points, which often decides the winner, but if the non-Snitch-catching team has a large enough lead in goals (at least 160), they will win despite the other team catching the Snitch. For example, the Ireland vs. Bulgaria World Cup final was won by Ireland, who had scored significantly more goals, even after Bulgaria's Seeker caught the Snitch."

Yes, this always bugged me, too. It's like there are two different games, one of which can completely negate the other.

The only way of making sense of it would be if the behaviour of the snitch was somehow shaped by the progress of the 'other' game, so that excellence by the other team members improved the snitch-guy's chance of catching it (can't remember the proper title for the snitch-guy). But then the snitch-guy shouldn't be as celebrated as he is.

I'm also concerned about risk assessments for quidditch.

Maybe it’s a metaphor for the unfairness inherent in civilisation.

Tactics, you have to prolong the game if you’re losing.