Of course, we know about the famous Ireland-Bulgaria game, but is there any other game where catching the Snitch was not enough for victory?
5
-
5My guess is that, in most games, the Snitch isn't caught. The losing team is the one that really benefits from catching the Snitch. For the winning team, it's much more beneficial to prevent the other Seeker from catching it. And, since the Snitch is tough to catch as is, it becomes pretty much impossible to catch if the opposing Seeker is dedicated to actively preventing you from catching it. In the meantime, the team with the better non-Seeker players wins the game.– Misha RMar 26, 2018 at 4:26
-
26The game only ends when the snitch is caught, or by mutual agreement of the two team captains (said to be fairly rare), so I'd say in most games the Snitch IS caught.– starpilotsixMar 26, 2018 at 7:25
-
4@MishaRosnach I do not follow your argumentation at all. If you're up by 100 points, why not catch the snitch and seal your victory at +250?– Azor Ahai -him-Mar 26, 2018 at 16:19
-
4@MishaRosnach Quidditch matches often last a long, long time. The record is something like several weeks or months. No one wants to be flying on a broom that long. The point is to win, so the winning team wants to catch the Snitch as soon as possible. If they wait longer, that gives the losing team a chance to catch up and/or catch the Snitch, and win. It is the losing team that is benefited by preventing the other team's Seeker from catching it, because if they do, the losing team will definitely lose. So, the opposite of what you said is true.– TylerHMar 26, 2018 at 16:27
-
@starpilotsix I didn't know that catching the Snitch was actually required. Nonetheless, that alters my point, but not entirely. For the Seeker on the team that is currently winning (i.e. had better non-Seeker players), it is still very much beneficial to focus on preventing the other Seeker from catching the Snitch - at least until the difference in the scores is high enough where catching the Snitch won't make a difference. Only then both Seekers should go for the Snitch, although at that point the Seeker roles likely switch. It's the only way the Snitch isn't 99% of what matters.– Misha RMar 26, 2018 at 20:00
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Yes, there was.
When the Gryffindor team was getting thoroughly beat by Hufflepuff due to Harry being banned from the team, Ginny caught the Snitch but Gryffindor still lost by ten points.
“The miracle was that Gryffindor only lost by ten points: Ginny managed to snatch the Snitch from right under Hufflepuff Seeker Summerby’s nose, so that the final score was two hundred and forty versus two hundred and thirty.”
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 26 (Seen and Unforseen)
-
15@C.Koca No, there were no Quidditch scenes in the movie because the director decided to leave them out since he felt they weren’t needed.– ObsidiaMar 25, 2018 at 22:07
-
2If the game only ends when the Snitch is caught, doesn't this mean that Ginny (in catching the Snitch right then) caused Gryffindor to lose this match?– OnyzMar 26, 2018 at 12:49
-
4@Onyz Yes, but note that Hufflepuff was about to catch the snitch themselves so if she let it go then they would lose by 310 points not 10 points.– Tim BMar 26, 2018 at 12:59
-
2@TimB Which, as far as we understand from the rules of Quidditch, makes no difference at all. She could just block the other catcher to prolong the match, but alas - the sport is a mess already, tailored to make the protagonista shine, so there is that.– T. SarMar 26, 2018 at 13:05
-
19@T.Sar It makes no difference to a particular game of Quidditch (a loss is a loss), but it makes a huge difference to the Hogwarts Quidditch Cup, which seems to use scores as a tie-breaker for Houses with identical win-loss records. It's possible - I would even say likely - that professional Quidditch leagues use a similar system, too. Mar 26, 2018 at 13:31