Welcome to the IQA website

Login or register to take part in discussions in the forums and comment on news items.

Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

news, Players' Corner, Rules

A look at Quidditch Rulebook v. 5.0

by Kristy Wright | July 25th, 2011

This August, the International Quidditch Association will present the IQA Rulebook v. 5.0, a newly updated version of the rules of Quidditch. To learn more, IQA staff writer Kristy Wright spoke with IQA rules council president Will Hack.

What are some of the most noticeable changes to the 5.0 version of the rulebook?

One noticeable change is the reintroduction of penalty box, which was in previous versions of the rulebook. There will also be a new mechanic for stopping and restarting plays, where players will have to stop in place in certain situations on the referee’s whistle. They will be allowed to resume, with everything else unchanged, after the referee has resolved the situation; we got the idea for this rule from women’s lacrosse.

There will also be a five-minute “seeker floor” to try to prevent extremely short games. Seekers will be required to remain on the pitch until this floor has ended, and then will be free to search for the snitch. This floor will be adjustable for pitches that have special circumstances.

There are a number of other changes, but you’ll have to wait for the rulebook release to see those.

Why update the rulebook?

There were a lot of gray areas in the rulebook, especially in areas like how to restart play after a stoppage. We’ve tried to close any loopholes and generally make the rulebook more comprehensive. With any luck, it will be more reader-accessible as well.

What goes into the process for updating the rulebook?

Updating the rulebook is a year-long process. We consider input from the entire league, incorporating what we hear at tournaments and online. Jared Kowalcyzk, the former rules council president, set everything in motion, and I took over the task of working all of the council’s decisions into rulebook form when Jared had to step down due to having too many obligations this summer.

On a day-to-day basis, we discuss particular rules that need to be adjusted in the rulebook. If we come to a consensus, the change is incorporated directly into our intermediary rulebook (our current incarnation, this close to the release, is Rulebook 4.9). If there is disagreement, we hold a vote before reaching a decision.

The rulebook council currently has 11 members, all of whom were chosen by submitting a resume when the council formed last year. Everyone has an equal vote, and there is a wide variety of regions represented on the council to try to get different opinions from around the league.

Have there been any challenges with updating the rulebook?

[Laughs] Every day. The issues we deal with are quite contentious, so it is impossible to make every member of the council happy, much less everyone in the league. An example was the penalty box vs. penalty shot debate. The majority opinion was in favor of instituting penalty shots to deal with fouls that prevent a goal, but a few members felt that a penalty box would be much better for the game. The debate got pretty heated. Ultimately, because penalty shots might require play to be stopped for a long period of time, we decided upon the penalty box by a narrow margin.

Of course, trying to combine the collected revelations of five-plus years of Quidditch into a single coherent whole has a lot of less exciting problems. Right now it is all about reorganization and trying to make the grammar and tense match across the rulebook. But I think the rules themselves are most challenging, because that is what we are most passionate about.

How will the IQA notify teams about the new rules?

The planned release of the Rulebook 5.0 is on Aug. 15. The IQA hasn’t been historically successful in hitting its deadlines, but I plan to turn that around. [Laughs]

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

The council has put in an incredible amount of work into this rulebook, and I believe we have made Quidditch a lot better for it. When Rulebook 5.0 comes out, I think you all will be quite pleased with the result.

10 Responses to “A look at Quidditch Rulebook v. 5.0”

July 25, 2011

12:39 pm

You should field test new changes so you can have an idea of the affected dynamic. what looks good on paper might play completely differently

propic

Will Hack

Captain, Jetpack Ninja Dinosaurs; Captain, Michigan State University; Michigan State Director

July 25, 2011

3:09 pm

Oh believe me, we do as much as possible. We played with the new distance-between-hoops at MSU’s last tournament. I wish we could field test even more, but we do what we can.

annul

July 25, 2011

5:32 pm

there is nothing that prohibits us from releasing an emergency 5.1 a week or two into the school year if something turns out to be drastically bad or if there is a massive rules loophole we failed to catch and plug.

July 27, 2011

12:42 am

So, I’m not totally in favor of this “seeker floor”…Although it will prevent the three minute snitch catch, that’s part of the game. The fast snitch catch originated from bad reffing where the head ref started gameplay before the snitch went out of sight. Other than those bad starts, the early catches add to the skill and excitement of the game.

July 27, 2011

7:49 pm

I also disagree with the seeker floor. The reduction in the ammount of points for a snitch catch greatly reduces the need of that. Within those few minutes that it would take for a “quick catch,” 30 points can easily happen.

    August 6, 2011

    1:42 am

    I’m a seeker and have gotten the snitch grab in under two minutes in a regional tournament. There were no points on the scoreboard. Both teams were excellent. There’s clearly a problem here.

annul

July 29, 2011

4:25 am

the impetus behind the seeker floor is not because we find an imbalance between quaffle play scoring and snitch scoring. it’s because after looking at the data for ALL matches in the previous season, we have determined that the average length for each match is lower than we would like. teams travel a very long distance to get to official tournaments, and to see teams go “three and out” while playing a TOTAL of less than 20 minutes in that tournament didn’t sit well with the council.

we understand that the circumstances for individual games/teams/tournaments may warrant a lower (or higher!) seeker floor. we’ve included this in the rules so teams can feel confident that they are playing a legitimate game under the 5.0 rules if they choose not to use the seeker floor provision.

August 7, 2011

9:32 pm

Thank you for all of your hard work to make Quidditch the best it can be!

August 9, 2011

7:36 pm

Personally, I prefer Australia’s approach. Limiting the seeker’s role during gameplay seems silly (they have so many options!) Release of the snitch should be delayed INSTEAD of limiting the seekers. It makes the snitch/seeker play that much more of a spectacle PLUS could gaurentee a length of however long the snitch release is delayed. Fifteen minutes sounds good to me.

Leave a Reply

Connect with Facebook