Could Quidditch really work?

[melodiousmonkey]

No: HPFGUIDX 47822

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Megalynn S." <megalynn44 at h...> wrote:
> The thing that gets me most about Quidditch is the 150 pts. Why
can't the 
> game just be over when the snitch is caught? Or why not 50 points? I
mean 
> having more than an 150 point difference is SO unlickly it makes the
rest of 
> the game almost pointless.  Or even, have like a 2 hour time limit
on the 
> game and if you get the snitch you get the extra opints but if not,
the 
> games just over. I don't know, it's just unreasonable to me.
> 
> Megalynn44
> 

I agree with this - it seems much more sensible to play for 2 hours or
so, and make catching the snitch worth 50 or 60 points, then
re-releasing it, making it possible for seekers to catch it several
times in a match, or not at all.  The way it stands, catching the
snitch almost always wins the game, and on the odd occaision when one
team is so much better than another that a 150 point gap opens up, the
seeker on the losing team can't catch the snitch (I still can't fathom
why Krum lost his team the chance of winning the world cup...)

The reason why the seeker is so important (apart from the one given in
QTHA) is probably to allow Harry to be a hero every match.  It is
equivallent to someone scoring a golden goal in soccer.

That's my thoughts, anyway
Paul