Quidditch

[Antares]

So, I'm currently reading the fifth book and Ginny just caught the Snitch at a Quidditch game. Gryffindor still lost, because the other side had enough goals. So I can't help thinking: Why, as a seeker, would you want to catch the Snitch if your team is that far behind? You'd want to keep the other seeker from catching it, but catch it yourself? If they catch it, you've lost. If you catch it, you've lost. If neither catches it, you've got a fighting chance. Also, in most cases, the chasers are just there to entertain the crowd while the seekers do their jobs, as it's usually the team that catches the snitch that wins, no matter how the chasers do.

 

Does anyone else think those Quidditch rules are a bit weird and depend on seekers trying to catch the snitch even when this will lose the match?

[NaWaDa1]

I don´t think the rules are weird

 

You catch the snitch if you know that your team will not good enough to get more points.

At the Quidditch worldcup it is the same: Krum catched the snitch but ireland won.

From the first book we know that Quidditch games can be on a very long time; so I think it´s better to catch the snitch and end the match than play three month or longer

[The Dude]

Goals aren't worth much and capturing the snitch is worth 150 points which ends the game and the team that captures the snitch is most often the winning team. So in essence, all the other stuff is just window dressing. The game is actually between the two seekers. 9 times out of 10 if you just had the two seekers on the pitch trying to catch the snitch and got rid of everybody else, the outcome would be the same as if you did have all the players.

[Danielle]

I suppose it is the competitiveness as well, most people when they play sports want to do well for themselves and play to the best of their ability even if their team isn't doing so well. I only follow football and when a team is losing badly, say 7-0 and they have no chance of winning, they still try and score goals and often may get a consolation and I think the same rings true with Quidditch - even though they have lost the game, at least the seeker can consolidate themselves that they did their job, and got the snitch.

[Antares]

even though they have lost the game, at least the seeker can consolidate themselves that they did their job, and got the snitch.

Actually, I would have expected this to be considered a blunder by the team's seeker. In football, there's the time limit, so all you can do is try to score as many goals as possible before time runs out. In Quidditch, it's the seekers who decide when the game ends, and ending the game while your team is losing doesn't seem like a wise move.

 

So I suppose it would have to be about not having a chance anyway and trying to end it quickly, maybe to not exhaust your players in a game they cannot win.

[Danielle]

Actually, I would have expected this to be considered a blunder by the team's seeker. In football, there's the time limit, so all you can do is try to score as many goals as possible before time runs out. In Quidditch, it's the seekers who decide when the game ends, and ending the game while your team is losing doesn't seem like a wise move.

 

So I suppose it would have to be about not having a chance anyway and trying to end it quickly, maybe to not exhaust your players in a game they cannot win.

Yep, I guess that you could look at it that way, but personally I still see it as a positive move on the seekers part... If I was a seeker and I knew my team had almost no chance of getting back into the game, i'd still want to get that snitch, for the very least it would stop the opposing seeker from getting it.

 

I wonder if it's explained more clearly in Quidditch Through the Ages, I have never read that book.

[yorkshire]

If I was on a quidditch team, and not the seeker, and our seeker caught the snitch when we were over 150 points behind I would be pretty annoyed with them.

[The Dude]

I totally get where you're coming form Antares.

[Danielle]

There are so many ways of looking at it, but it clearly isn't a big issue, nobody was annoyed at Ginny for it and when Krum caught it they were singing his name (at least in the films anyway)

 

From the Goblet of Fire....

 

'What did he catch the Snitch for?' Ron bellowed, even as he jumped up and down, applauding with his hands over his head. 'He ended it when Ireland were a hundred and sixty points ahead, the idiot!'

'He knew they were never going to catch up.' Harry shouted back over all the noise, also applauding loudly, 'the Irish Chasers were too good ... he wanted to end it on his terms, that's all ... '

 

Reading more into it, it is even less of an issue for Ginny, as the Quidditch Cup is awarded to the team with the most points at the end of a season, or school year so even though they lost the game, they still might be ahead on points and catching the snitch helped towards that.

[Antares]

There are so many ways of looking at it, but it clearly isn't a big issue, nobody was annoyed at Ginny for it and when Krum caught it they were singing his name (at least in the films anyway)

Well, I don't doubt it works in Rowling's world, she invented the rules. Maybe I really should have a look at "Quidditch through the ages", I haven't read it either. But I think what you said about the points makes a lot of sense: Catching the Snitch is worth 15 goals, so if it's all about points at the end of the year, it absolutely makes sense to catch the Snitch and take 150 points for yourself and not risk the opposing team getting them.

 

'What did he catch the Snitch for?' Ron bellowed, even as he jumped up and down, applauding with his hands over his head. 'He ended it when Ireland were a hundred and sixty points ahead, the idiot!'

'He knew they were never going to catch up.' Harry shouted back over all the noise, also applauding loudly, 'the Irish Chasers were too good ... he wanted to end it on his terms, that's all ... '

Yes, I suppose it's natural for the seeker to "at least catch the Snitch", but as yorkshire said: Maybe the other team members aren't always thrilled when their seeker alone decides they've got no chance of winning.

 

Putting points above all, I see another problem arise:

 

Suppose it's the last game of the year and these are the standings:

Gryffindor: 510

Slytherin: 470

Ravenclaw: 270

Hufflepuff: 10

 

The last game is between Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. Who is going to win the cup?

 

If both play tactically sane, it would have to be either Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff, unless Hufflepuff says "we've got no chance anyway, let's end it on our terms" giving the cup the Gryffindor. But then, would they have done that if Slytherin had been in the lead?

 

Either way, having rules of "both teams score points until this-or-that-happens" while it's up to the players to decide when "this-or-that" happens seems rather unfortunate if at the end of the year you select the best team based on how many points they scored.

[NaWaDa1]

I don´t know but I still think I would catch thhe snitch

[The Dude]

'He ended it when Ireland were a hundred and sixty points ahead, the idiot!'

'He knew they were never going to catch up.' Harry shouted back over all the noise, also applauding loudly, 'the Irish Chasers were too good ... he wanted to end it on his terms, that's all ... '

 

It's been a while since I've read the books but this strategy makes absolutely no sense. Your team is behind 160 pts. You catch the snitch and lose the game by 10 points. Wait to see if you team scores a goal, then if you catch it you tie. If your team scores two goals and you catch it then you win.

 

As far as the points are concerned, this makes sense. It's like NASCAR, you may not win the final race but if you win the points then your are the cup champion.

[Danielle]

Suppose it's the last game of the year and these are the standings:

Gryffindor: 510

Slytherin: 470

Ravenclaw: 270

Hufflepuff: 10

 

The last game is between Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. Who is going to win the cup?

 

If both play tactically sane, it would have to be either Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff, unless Hufflepuff says "we've got no chance anyway, let's end it on our terms" giving the cup the Gryffindor. But then, would they have done that if Slytherin had been in the lead?

 

Either way, having rules of "both teams score points until this-or-that-happens" while it's up to the players to decide when "this-or-that" happens seems rather unfortunate if at the end of the year you select the best team based on how many points they scored.

I think both Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff would both try to win the game, unless Slytherin were in contention, in which case, anyone but them.

 

For me it should be about winning games, although I suppose doing it by points makes games more exciting from an attacking point of view.

 

It's been a while since I've read the books but this strategy makes absolutely no sense. Your team is behind 160 pts. You catch the snitch and lose the game by 10 points. Wait to see if you team scores a goal, then if you catch it you tie. If your team scores two goals and you catch it then you win.

No it doesn't make sense, in a league situation where points count, and both seekers are chasing the snitch at the same time, it would be right to get there first, take the points even though it means losing the game, but Krum doing it in the Quidditch World Cup doesn't make sense, so I guess we'll just have to take Harry's word that he simply 'wanted to end it on his terms'

[enennyVaw]

cialis prescription Both male and female mice in each group showed a similar pattern of changes in body weight, bladder weight relative to body weight, and bladder histology