I think the standard answer is that modern Quidditch is a vestigial remnant of an older version where the games typically went on so long that scoring system made sense. Do you have a different problem with the game?
I’m rather pleased with myself for figuring out why there’s a Slytherin house—if you were setting up a school, would you have a quarter of it devoted to evil?
As it turns out, Slytherin wasn’t so bad at the founding of the school.
I think the standard answer is that modern Quidditch is a vestigial remnant of an older version where the games typically went on so long that scoring system made sense. Do you have a different problem with the game?
The scoring system is silly but at least would function. My objection is to the practical physics involved in the all the play except that involving the quaffle and the seeker. Well, perhaps the beaters are ok too, suspension of disbelief unrealistic resistance to physical trauma. But the stuff where the chasers somehow steal the ball off each other as though it is a real sport. If she spent 5 minutes thinking about her game she should have been able to do better.
In basketball you have to bounce the ball or be standing still.
In netball you can’t walk at all.
In soccer you cannot touch the ball.
In ruby, etc, you are expected to physically knock the opponent over and even then you don’t expect to actually get the ball off them, that is a special case. An embarrassing mistake on their part!
In AFL you have to bounce the ball regularly while running and not only do the opponents physically tackle you to the ground, if you are tackled you have to get rid of the ball.
In quidditch you get the quaffle and you can fly freely in three dimensions and have to put the ball through an enormous hoop. Oh, and there are THREE of them to aim at. There is no reason to ever pass the ball (at least as described in the books or shown in the films). The only way someone should ever not score a goal is if they are physically knocked off their broom with a bludger or via a full on aerial melee. Both of these cases would quickly result on all tactics converging to a literal “flying V”. It would be the chasers that would be selected for brawn, far more so than the beaters.
quickly result on all tactics converging to a literal “flying V”.
Both the limited number of players, and the fact that the game takes place in 3 dimensions, make it much harder to construct a properly protected “flying V.”
Both the limited number of players, and the fact that the game takes place in 3 dimensions, make it much harder to construct a properly protected “flying V.”
If there was a much higher player limit it may suggest a ‘flying prolate spheroid with the quaffle somewhat closer to the back’ (the latter part depends on relative broom speed. Even then I have a hunch that it will be weighted in optimal defender density somewhat towards the altitude of the quaffle bearer. This is because of the way the ball is held and the fact that the brooms will interfere with steals from below and above.
With the specified limits I suspect I would end up with defaulting to what is approximately a V but with rehearsed tactics for when one guardian must be diverted to run interference on an interceptor or gets taken out of play by good defense. It is the beaters that I would count on to cover the top and bottom, with the bottom one in particular remaining mobile for bludger defense while the top one can use the height (and gravity) advantage to quickly act as a reserve and make brutal targeted headshots.
I’m following the observation of what the player restriction means and using the extreme case to allude to what trends changed restrictions would make. (Actually having no limit would of course make play depend on enlistment and training in ‘within rules’ combat. Which is a kind of amusing thought.)
I’m rather pleased with myself for figuring out why there’s a Slytherin house—if you were setting up a school, would you have a quarter of it devoted to evil?
Even ‘now’ the Slytherins aren’t all evil. It is just that most evil came from Slytherin. I would describe Slytherin as somewhat exaggerated but otherwise realistic. People with that kind of ambitious do tend to congregate together in exclusive groups. In most cases they will not be labeled ‘evil’ by society. They will end up in socially powerful positions within the system. But when you have a situation where a single ‘Voldemort’ (or equivalent muggle) grabs for power the ‘Slytherins’ will quickly form up behind him. It is the sort of opportunity they are built for.
I figured it out at some point fairly early in the series, before the history of Hogwarts had been explained.
The clearest evidence that Slytherin isn’t just about evil is Slughorn. I wouldn’t mind seeing a story about opposition to the Pure Blood movement from the more pragmatic Slytherins. After all, magic will last their time, and why risk making powerful enemies?
The clearest evidence that Slytherin isn’t just about evil is Slughorn.
Even Snape. He’s a Di@#$, not evil. And that seems to apply to many of the Slytherins. Including that principal from the picture.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a story about opposition to the Pure Blood movement from the more pragmatic Slytherins. After all, magic will last their time, and why risk making powerful enemies?
I would not expect that to happen. Not because that pragmatic drive woudn’t occur to them but because tribal considerations would override it. What I would expect is for the majority of the Slytherins to quickly renounce their former position as soon as the tides of power changed (eg. if Voldemort gets his ass kicked by care-bear powers). In contrast I would expect Gryfindors to be more likely to be naive, to try to fight an already lost battle for an ideal and end up quite miserable or dead. I would expect the Hufflepuffs to be more or less irrelevant and live mediocre lives while the Ravenclaws would be too self absorbed to have all that much practical influence.
I think the standard answer is that modern Quidditch is a vestigial remnant of an older version where the games typically went on so long that scoring system made sense. Do you have a different problem with the game?
I’m rather pleased with myself for figuring out why there’s a Slytherin house—if you were setting up a school, would you have a quarter of it devoted to evil?
As it turns out, Slytherin wasn’t so bad at the founding of the school.
The scoring system is silly but at least would function. My objection is to the practical physics involved in the all the play except that involving the quaffle and the seeker. Well, perhaps the beaters are ok too, suspension of disbelief unrealistic resistance to physical trauma. But the stuff where the chasers somehow steal the ball off each other as though it is a real sport. If she spent 5 minutes thinking about her game she should have been able to do better.
In basketball you have to bounce the ball or be standing still.
In netball you can’t walk at all.
In soccer you cannot touch the ball.
In ruby, etc, you are expected to physically knock the opponent over and even then you don’t expect to actually get the ball off them, that is a special case. An embarrassing mistake on their part!
In AFL you have to bounce the ball regularly while running and not only do the opponents physically tackle you to the ground, if you are tackled you have to get rid of the ball.
In quidditch you get the quaffle and you can fly freely in three dimensions and have to put the ball through an enormous hoop. Oh, and there are THREE of them to aim at. There is no reason to ever pass the ball (at least as described in the books or shown in the films). The only way someone should ever not score a goal is if they are physically knocked off their broom with a bludger or via a full on aerial melee. Both of these cases would quickly result on all tactics converging to a literal “flying V”. It would be the chasers that would be selected for brawn, far more so than the beaters.
Both the limited number of players, and the fact that the game takes place in 3 dimensions, make it much harder to construct a properly protected “flying V.”
If there was a much higher player limit it may suggest a ‘flying prolate spheroid with the quaffle somewhat closer to the back’ (the latter part depends on relative broom speed. Even then I have a hunch that it will be weighted in optimal defender density somewhat towards the altitude of the quaffle bearer. This is because of the way the ball is held and the fact that the brooms will interfere with steals from below and above.
With the specified limits I suspect I would end up with defaulting to what is approximately a V but with rehearsed tactics for when one guardian must be diverted to run interference on an interceptor or gets taken out of play by good defense. It is the beaters that I would count on to cover the top and bottom, with the bottom one in particular remaining mobile for bludger defense while the top one can use the height (and gravity) advantage to quickly act as a reserve and make brutal targeted headshots.
If you increased the number of players that much, defense would become trivial, as blocking all the hoops simply with bodies would be easy.
I’m following the observation of what the player restriction means and using the extreme case to allude to what trends changed restrictions would make. (Actually having no limit would of course make play depend on enlistment and training in ‘within rules’ combat. Which is a kind of amusing thought.)
Even ‘now’ the Slytherins aren’t all evil. It is just that most evil came from Slytherin. I would describe Slytherin as somewhat exaggerated but otherwise realistic. People with that kind of ambitious do tend to congregate together in exclusive groups. In most cases they will not be labeled ‘evil’ by society. They will end up in socially powerful positions within the system. But when you have a situation where a single ‘Voldemort’ (or equivalent muggle) grabs for power the ‘Slytherins’ will quickly form up behind him. It is the sort of opportunity they are built for.
I figured it out at some point fairly early in the series, before the history of Hogwarts had been explained.
The clearest evidence that Slytherin isn’t just about evil is Slughorn. I wouldn’t mind seeing a story about opposition to the Pure Blood movement from the more pragmatic Slytherins. After all, magic will last their time, and why risk making powerful enemies?
Even Snape. He’s a Di@#$, not evil. And that seems to apply to many of the Slytherins. Including that principal from the picture.
I would not expect that to happen. Not because that pragmatic drive woudn’t occur to them but because tribal considerations would override it. What I would expect is for the majority of the Slytherins to quickly renounce their former position as soon as the tides of power changed (eg. if Voldemort gets his ass kicked by care-bear powers). In contrast I would expect Gryfindors to be more likely to be naive, to try to fight an already lost battle for an ideal and end up quite miserable or dead. I would expect the Hufflepuffs to be more or less irrelevant and live mediocre lives while the Ravenclaws would be too self absorbed to have all that much practical influence.