todays bird
KIROKAZE
Game of Thrones Daily
Phantogram Three
noise dept.
occasionally subtle
h
cherry valley forever
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Not today Justin
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
★
Game Changer & Make Some Noise
No title available
pixel skylines
hello vonnie
YOU ARE THE REASON
roma★
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
seen from Nepal
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany
seen from Costa Rica
seen from Brazil
seen from Taiwan
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Uruguay
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Portugal
seen from Philippines
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Iraq
@theblackbludger-blog
How many certified head referees does your region have? 3? 5? 0? Certainly not the 15+ it would take to comfortably run a regional championship. Likely not the 6+ it would take to comfortably run a 2 pitch tournament.
How many certified head refs did your region have last year at this time?...
Warning: offensive language
If you are going to fucking commit to a tournament literally months ago and then pull out THREE FUCKING DAYS BEFORE IT THEN FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
THIS ISN’T AN INCONVENIENCE AT ALL. FUCK.
WHERE ARE THE IQA’S NEW FUCKING RULES ABOUT FORFEITING AND DO THEY FUCKING APPLY HERE
FUCK
I like this. I like this a lot.
I think if I were a tournament organizer I'd count any team that dropped after the registration deadline as a forfeit of all games. The forfeit policy doesn't say that you can do that but it also doesn't say you can't, in my experience dealing with the IQA the latter trumps the former.
Leave it to the Feminist Front of Quidditch page to rake any editorial for the smallest thing at which to take offense. How empty must your life be to take offense at such insignificant things. The gender rule itself creates the positions of Female Chaser, Male Chaser, Female Beater, and Male Beater. You MUST differentiate gender when referring to position, or risk penalty within the game. For all intents and purposes you don't get to compare Female players to Men players, because they're established as separate within the rules. If you want people to start comparing players to each other regardless of gender, rid the sport of the gender rule.
Finally, the COO of the IQA has no business stirring the pot in such a purely inflammatory quidditch Facebook group. What was your goal in making these comments? To create an even further division between the genders? What happened to "promoting gender-equality attitudes inside and outside of the quidditch community?" Whatever happened to that new IQA Handbook?
Respect Others
Treat fellow IQA volunteers with courtesy and respect in person, during team calls, on staff forums and on all social media to foster a safe environment for all.
Earn the trust of the quidditch community through polite commentary and effective public discussion.
What kind of precedent does this set for your organization?
Side note: It's also nice to see two out of the three members (Clare Hutchinson and Sarah Takesian) of the "Title 9-3/4" staff throwing gas on the fire as well. Nice to know that the staff members charged with promoting gender equality in the sport are part of this "He-Woman, Man-haters Club."
http://iqaquidditch.com/news/2013/09/title-9-3-4-sparks-continuous-online-debate
...and articles like this will spark even further debate, as if it wasn't bad enough already. What were you trying to achieve with this article Editorial department?
Throughout this article the IQA is continuously comparing their system to Title IX, to which the IOC has a similar policy. I can't help but feel like the NCAA and the IOC may have a little more experience dealing with these issues in sports than the 8-year old IQA. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"We do not use biological sex because the gender rule does not exist as a way to keep teams evenly matched but as a way to ensure that gender equality is preserved"
Then I realized, "Title 9 3/4" has nothing to do with the sport, it's a social agenda being pushed. The problem with the requirement is that it doesn't make the issues LESS about gender, it makes them ALL about gender.
In quidditch you can pretty clearly judge the relative skill of one team to another simply by comparing each team's female players. For instance, I know my team isn't as good as, say, UCLA because my team's females would not be able to compete with UCLA's females.
Now I'm sure there will be all kinds of responses like, "Well, the girls on your team aren't as good because: sexism." but a vast majority of teams' leadership is able to look at their players as "who makes my team the best it can be through their play?" If they're one of the small minority that can't, then why are they still in a position of leadership? If what they're doing isn't in the best interest of the team, why does the team let them remain in charge?
In short, with recent online activity, I'm beginning to think that the Gender Requirement is more trouble than it's worth. So much animosity is created between genders over it, that it is about to start defeating its own purpose. Maybe it's high time the IQA seriously considers creating a Co-ed league without the gender requirement (like every other professional sport) and a women's league. Thank you for considering the following.
This marks the first installment of what I hope to be a regular feature here on Butts and Brooms. I’ll give you three things in quidditch that I think are currently HOT, and three things that I think are NOT. Pretty simple, right? Let’s get to it.
HOT:
Snitch Catch Off Pitch: Simply put:...
Hey now, The Eighth Man is a very comprehensive and professionally run news source. Their editorial staff are very knowledgable. Seriously though, ask them how knowledgable they are!
The Worst Quidditch Week of the Year
With students returning to school most university teams will find this week to be the best, and worst week of existence. Between the highly athletic people that will stop by your booth but never come to practice, and the athletic people who come to your first practice, never to be seen again. This week will be tortuous.
2014 Quidditch World Cup
Is it just me or is making an 80 team World Cup not really a big accomplishment? How far are we from just letting every registered team in?
What exactly were you thinking? Just curious
80 teams means more than half of ALL the registered teams last year that played in regionals would qualify World Cup. When a majority of teams qualify, can you really say "We qualified for the World Cup." as a major accomplishment? So did a majority of teams...
2014 Quidditch World Cup
Is it just me or is your team making an 80 team World Cup not really a big accomplishment? How far are we from just letting every registered team in? Isn’t the World Cup supposed to be the very peak of quidditch competition? We already let EVERYONE qualify for a regional.
Texas is most likely instituting conferences of 4-5 teams this next season. The conferences are based on proximity. The teams in the conferences will play each other either 1v1 or at small round robin tournaments. You are pro-conference systems, with a conference finals (to decide who goes to nationals?) Example: UTSA, UT, Tx State, Baylor, UIW all in one conference. How would you modify this system? Trial run for the rest of the league? Have you talked about standardization of regionals?
I'm really glad to hear that.
There are two problems with the current season system as I see it. First, the regular- and post-season systems aren't standardized. Second, the belief that you either can or should try to compare relative conference/region strength outside of a regional/national tournament.
I think the key is to the conference system being successful is that each team in the conference has to play every other team in the conference the same number of times. That's the biggest problem with the region system right now, no team plays the same combination of teams or the same number of games as any other team in the region, so there's no true comparison between the teams. This makes the current "regular season" pointless.
In my ideal quidditch season, the schedule would look a lot like the college sports seasons, meaning: a certain number of non-conference "exhibition" games and a standard number of match-ups with conference opponents.
The conference tournament system could vary from conference to conference. I think the best way would be for the four, six, or eight teams with the best conference records would qualify for and play in the conference tournament.
These conference tournaments would then either feed a regional (collection of proximate conferences) tournament or the national tournament, depending on the number of teams and number conferences. Whatever the tournament each conference tournament feeds there are a number systems you can use to seed a tournament.
First you can favor the conference tournament and rank teams based on how they finish at their conference tournament then fill the following tournament with the top X number of finishers. Alternately, you can choose to favor regular season play, let the conference winner qualify and fill however many other berths to fill based on regular season records.
From there you let the tournament formats do the work, rather than letting some committee or formula decide how good your conference/region is. In this format every team either won their conference or even their region, or (in the case of fewer, larger conferences/regions) did extremely well in their season and/or tournaments.
The Future of Quidditch: The World Cup
As I've pointed out before, the IQA's system of proportional berth assignment for the World Cup doesn't work. A quick look at which regions got the most berths compared to which regions had the best World Cup showings makes that clear. This wasn't a surprise to many. The reasoning for the system was that the regions often don't have a similar number of teams, for which the IQA has been blaming the regions, rather than fixing it themselves.
The problem with the regional system is that there are almost 140 teams split between only 7 regionals. Going forward, the IQA will have to move away from the regional format and toward a conference system. These conferences will be small, maybe 8-10 teams in each, and based on geographic proximity of teams rather than state boundaries. (Check out a NCAA Conference Map Here)
These conferences are small enough that travel to conference qualifiers is relatively short, the smallest geographic conferences might mean a trip across town to a conference tournament, the largest geographical conferences would be less than a days drive to a conference tournament.
The 60-team tournament format that the IQA has used in World Cup V and VI isn't sustainable financially for the teams. For one, it was difficult to fund-raise for a trip to Florida last year when you're all competing with 59 other teams to make money.
My proposal is that the IQA take up a system utilized by most NCAA sports, where conference tournaments feed smaller regional tournaments and regional tournaments feed a small national tournament.
Organizing an eight team tournament is not difficult, especially with IQA support. The small tournament size allows for the tournament to require only two pitches, which means the tournament may be held anywhere a single soccer field is available for a couple days. The small tournament size would also support a move from single match formats to a best-of 3 (or 5) format.
It's ridiculous that any team that qualifies for the World Cup would not be able to attend. That's something that the IQA really needs to look at as one of their major failings. If the IQA wants to consider the World Cup as the sport's major tournament, their first priority of the league should be that the best teams are in attendance. Along with my last post I call on the IQA to choose their venues in a way that allows all competing teams to attend.
The IQA treats the World Cup like a carnival. Why do we need a stage and performers? Isn't the pitch the stage, and aren't the players the performers? The World Cup needs to be treated less like a spectacle, as it is now, and more like a national final, which it is. It's time the focus at the World Cup fall on the game, with a smaller scale final tournament it helps move this focus, the IQA can line up more prestigious venues, larger, nicer stadiums in which all of the final matches can be played. It's time to look to our fellow club sports leagues. The National Club Softball, Soccer, Basketball, and Track leagues all play their finals in college stadiums, while the club baseball league plays their final in a minor league teams's stadium. So why is the quidditch national final relegated to city parks? I know it's hard for a lot of people in quidditch (especially the IQA's higher-ups) to understand, but it's really a special feeling to play your sport in a big-time venue, even if it's almost empty.
The World Cup doesn't need to be part of some major event, because the tournament is the event. The World Cup should be a reward for the players and teams who have worked hard and played hard all season to earn their spot, not a cash cow for the IQA. Make the World Cup about the players and the teams. Get a nice venue (maybe a professional/college football or soccer stadium for the weekend) and pay for the necessary staff and facilities. Let the games draw the crowds.
The IQA's big announcement last week was introduced to mixed reviews. The two finalists to host World Cup 7 were announced as Myrtle Beach, SC and last year's host Kissimmee, FL. Kissimmee made waves last year when it was announced, setting the record for the furthest West a US World Cup had ever been held, and it looks like it will hold that title for another year.
The venue selection process has been called into question many times in the last weeks, understandably so considering the lack of transparency on the IQA's end. In fact, to my knowledge, no bid details have been released publicly, IQA membership was simply asked to accept that these were the best two bids received.
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if these two locations were some of the only bids that the IQA received. Many people I've heard from that submitted bids have claimed that, after contacting the city they worked with to create the bid, their city or organization was never contacted by OAN or the IQA to investigate the bid.
While I understand that it's far too late to change any details of World Cup 7 now, I'm calling on the IQA to release the details of the Kissimmee bid, the Myrtle Beach bid, and any other bids the acquired in the spirit of transparency to their paying members.
What of it IQA? Let us see the bids you received. The worst that can happen is that your members have a better idea of what is necessary next year.
Quidditch Disillusionment:
So the IQA editorial department is accepting responses for stories about how people came to quidditch. After the question I received this morning i have to wonder:
How many of you have become disillusioned with quidditch as a result of the online community?
Am I the only one who's started to advise their new recruits NOT to get involved with the quidditch community online? It's interesting considering that one year ago I felt like "Westbook" was one of the major tools for player retention.
Not at all. The All the Regions page has become a constant war zone of social and political ideals, it’s really sad.
I’ve really had to step away from the quidditch community and the IQA because the way they each are going had made me start disliking the game.
That’s what a lot of people don’t get when they’re being assholes online about racism/anti-racism or sexism/anti-sexism. People who see you insulting and personally attacking others, they know you play quidditch, and in a way your actions taint quidditch for them.I see a lot of the quidditch community sing the praises of quidditch being all-inclusive as opposed to other sports, but they fail to see that quidditch is possibly less inclusive than other sports. But then again, the nerd community is THE MOST noninclusive community of people there are. (A good example was at Comic-Con a few years ago Zachary Quinto was ridiculed by a panel audience for not knowing what “Tardis" means, I mean, come on nerds)I digress.Anyway, to answer your question, No you’re not the only one. I’d recommend turning off notifications for all of the quidditch groups you’re a part of, don’t friend people just because their profile picture is them playing quidditch. Unfriend the people in quidditch you don’t actually know, or don’t know well.Do all that and you’ll find that quidditch becomes fun again.
What is wrong with teams and/or players simply wanting to play their best players, without even factoring gender into the equation? Because honestly, that’s the issue many people have with the gender rule. That many teams are forced to make better players sit while players who aren’t as good are out there on the pitch, based on something other than skill. And no, “Because then female players who are legitimately better will get ignored" is not a valid answer, because it’s not true. Team captains don’t care what your gender is, they care what you can do for the team. If you are the best option, you will play. That’s how sports work generally. They’re not gonna hurt their own team’s chances at winning because of someone’s gender. So, I would genuinely like an honest, civil answer as to what is wrong with teams wanting to be able to play their best players regardless of gender? I would love to have an actual constructive discussion about this. If you don’t want your response to be seen publicly, feel free to message it to me.
Before I jump into this, I just want you to know I’m approaching both you and the topic with respect and an equal interest to discuss the topic -
I’m sorry, but have you seen some of the comments on that thread? I do believe that while there are men who are going to see past gender to the heart of what makes a player great, there are also people like those responsible for the rape joke incursion that happened a few weeks ago…men who believe women simply aren’t as good (PERIOD) and inherently don’t have a place on the pitch with the boys.
While you may believe that “Team captains don’t care what your gender is….If you are the best option, you will play," it might be good to contemplate how it feels to be a female player in an overwhelmingly male sport. I love quidditch more than anything, but it’s tough to be a girl here. I know from personal experience that my male captain was recurringly - though perhaps unintentionally - extremely sexist about both the way he treated and played our female players. In fact, all of my male teammates have been that way. While ensuring we kept girls on the field was always a priority, it was discussed dismissively and with great reluctance and annoyance:
"Why don’t we put Joseph out there for Jacqui-"
"NOOO, we CAN’T, then we’ll be down a GIRL-"
One of our best chasers was a girl and was always where she needed to be to score during tough spots, but no one ever thought of her during game play; she was always forgotten or completely ignored because the male teammates took priority. She is why we need Title 9 3/4.
At Regionals, several of my male teammates decided it might be fun to openly gauge the attractiveness level of their female teammates - right in front of us. While we were practicing. Five minutes before an important game. When myself and one of my female friends expressed outrage and anger over this, our male captain told us we were overreacting and making “a big fuss over nothing." This is why we need Title 9 3/4.
Until men stop addressing the proximity and presence of women (and other differently gendered persons) with such disdain and disrespect, rules like Title 9 3/4 are absolutely essential to the advancement of this sport.
Look, the gender rule isn’t just about ensuring gender equality in the world of quidditch; it’s about playing a part in helping diminish the sort of sexism that we saw on Elli’s All the Regions post - the sort that laughs at women, talks down to them, calls them “feminazis," and tells them that women’s rights should be over.
Thank you so much for this wonderfully respectful response. Hopefully I can be as equally respectful with my response here. I want to say up front that I am so very sorry that you were treated that way by your male teammates. Nobody should have to endure that, especially in this sport.
I would, however, like to address a couple of your points that I happen to disagree with, and I know a lot of other players who feel the same way I do.
As far as the sexist comments on Elli’s post, it’s important to note that they go both ways. It’s not just everyone jumping on female players and disrespecting them. It happened quite a bit to male players in that thread too. so it’s not just a problem of female players being disrespected based on their gender, it’s a matter of all types of players becoming disrespectful and antagonistic towards other players based on their gender. For that reason, sexist or perceived sexist comments alone are not justification for the problems caused by the gender rule.
Secondly, I don’t think that your assertion that male players address the presence and proximity of female players with disrespect and disdain is correct. Sure, there are a select few, but that is a very small minority. There is also a small minority of female players who view the presence of male players in the sport with disrespect and disdain, so once again it goes both ways. The huge majority of players in this wonderful sport (myself included) are glad that the sport is coed, and feel that it would be detrimental to the sport if it were to be separated into different leagues.
There is a difference between being unhappy that the gender rule often forces less-skilled players to take precedence over more-skilled teammates and being disdainful or disrespectful towards female players. I am so grateful for my female teammates, and this sport wouldn’t be the same without them. I would never have discovered this wonderful sport if not for female players, as it was a female friend who introduced me to quidditch, and both of my captains on my original small team were female. I wouldn’t be here if not for them, or several other wonderful female players who helped me to progress in the sport. My female teammates are an integral part of my quidditch team family, and I will vehemently support them and their right to be on the team. However, our entire team knows that on our particular team, the best 10-12 players all happen to be male, and so being forced to play two female players at all times not only deprives some of our teammates of deserved playing time, but it also hurts the quality of play for our team overall. Our female players have acknowledged this, as they too want what is best for the team. I think the majority of all players in quidditch do.
On every team I have played on, female players have absolutely been given equal opportunities. I will give you an example. I was our keeper last season, and we played a one-male, one-female beater line in front of me. The beater directly in front of me who was the last line of defense before getting to me was our female beater. If we only had one bludger, it went to her. We didn’t say “Oh, go out and just try to make something happen on your own, and we’re not gonna give you any help." We did everything we could to put her, and the team overall, in a position to be successful. Our captains have worked extensively with our female players to help them improve, not just our male players. We are a united team, both male and female players coming together to form it. and that’s how we view each member of our team.
By and large, that is how most teams in quidditch function. Everybody just wants what’s best for the team overall, and cares about one another. I am sorry that you had a bad experience on your team, but that is by no means the norm. I have also encountered a few teams where male players are treated poorly by their female teammates, but that doesn’t mean that quidditch as a whole has a problem with it.
In the end, the statement that the gender rule isn’t about true equality is problematic. Because that’s what this sport is all about. Everyone gets an equal chance to succeed and prove themselves. So that’s why many players have a problem with the gender rule. It’s not that they hate female players and want to see them gone. It’s that they don’t like the inequality it causes, and the negative impact it has on many teams.
I hope this was respectful and polite, and I would love to hear any feedback or thoughts you have.
I always feel like a lot of the gender debate arises because a great many quidditch players don't actually know how sports work. The sports newbies don't realize that often, competition for a spot on a team is tougher competition than that which takes place between two teams. Teams improve because its players compete against each other, working hard to win playing time, or a starting position. Just because you make a team doesn't mean you're entitled to play.
Quidditch, however, throws a wrench into the system with the gender requirement. Now, you don't have to be one of the best 21 players to make the roster, or one of the best 7 players to earn a starting spot. In quidditch you just have to be one of the 2 best players of your gender. Even if that means you're the 20th best player on your team.
The Future of Quidditch: The Pitch
(the second installment in the series. I will reference my previous post about The Quaffle.)
The current iteration of the quidditch pitch is still strongly influenced by its portrayal in the Harry Potter novels, which in turn is based on a cricket pitch. If that’s not enough to prove the field needs a serious overhaul, let’s take a closer look.
The current pitch is a 48 yard by 33 yard ellipse with the hoops 36 yards apart. In comparison the entire quidditch pitch is about 45% larger than basketball court, and about 35% smaller than a hockey rink. Hoop to hoop, however, is quite similar to basketball, where the distance between the goals in each sport differ by only about 4.5 yards.
Two unique aspects of the sport also need to be considered: First, the field boundaries. For all intents and purposes there are none. Play may leave the drawn boundaries at anytime with any penalty for such action being entirely up to the referee’s discretion. Second, the ability to score through either side of the hoops. This is entirely unique to quidditch as far as I can tell, and presents a seemingly great difficulty for goal "refs". First off, when the IQA finally realizes I'm right about the quaffle issues and gets a better game ball, the pitch will need to change in size. The ability to actually pass and shoot accurately will make the 36 yards between the hoops seem like nothing. Let's face it, even if the quaffle doesn't get changed, a lot of players can already get fairly close to making long distance (half field or greater) shots. A main concern I hear from people is that if the pitch grows, quidditch will be more tiring, but I submit to you that part of the reason you run so much in quidditch is cause by the bludgers. With a larger pitch, and a better quaffle, good beaters will no longer be able to lock down an entire half of the field, it will require them to be much more mobile then they have to be currently, and it will increase the level of strategy that beaters will need.
Next, the pitch boundaries. I really don't care what you think, everything outside the pitch boundaries needs to be out of bounds. Quidditch players have gotten increasingly lazy with their passes and bold with their shots knowing that they can miss their target and, as long as their teammates are faster, they will almost always retain possession. Many feel that, again, bludgers make out of bounds policy impossible, but I submit to you that you easily solve any problem when the ball goes out of bounds by either giving the quaffle to the teams keeper in the keeper zone, or let the other team take over at the spot and giving them keeper-like immunity until they shoot, pass, or begin to run.
The ellipse, was a horrible idea. The only reason our pitch is such a difficult shape to chalk is because that's what Rowling said it was in the book. Even then, it was only that way in the book because she based the pitch on that of Cricket. It looks like, that as of the Rules Team Poll the IQA is seriously considering changing the pitch to something a little more reasonable. Many issues with the pitch go unchanged because "it makes quidditch unique", but the thing is, so many sports probably use rectangular, or near rectangular fields for a reason. Sports also have specific solid boundaries for a reason. We're talking about sports which have been played for 100+ years, maybe the IQA should stop caring about what is "unique" and start going with what "works best."
(this is the first of a multi-part article about the future of quidditch and what will need to change for quidditch to survive until our children are old enough to play.)
Oh the quaffle, after playing years of competitive sports it was new for me to have to adapt to varying ball specs from one…
Possible alternative: water polo ball.
See, they even look like volleyballs.
In the game of water polo, you are only allowed to touch the ball with one hand unless you are the goalkeeper. (This is why I instinctively try to catch the ball with one hand all the time, teammates. My apologies.) Players need to be able to pick up the ball, catch, and throw singlehandedly. Because of this, water polo balls have incredibly good grip, in and out of the water.
There are a couple of different sizes of water polo balls. In the picture above you can see it is a men’s water polo ball. Women’s balls are smaller because our hands are usually smaller. I’ve also seen junior water polo balls that are smaller than women’s. So three sizes, but if we decided to consistently use one size it would mean a much more standardized quaffle.
They are a bit heavier, but that makes for more accurate shots and passes.
You know how much slippier a volleyball quaffle gets when you’re playing in the rain or on a wet field? No problem. It’s going to be just as grippy wet as it is dry.
But really quidkids, it’s something to seriously consider.
I actually disagree with the water polo ball. Unless google lies a men's water polo ball is actually LARGER than a volleyball, and a women's water polo ball is the SAME size as a volleyball. While I think the weight increase (almost 50%) would help with throwing accuracy, that increase is substantial. Also the size doesn't help at all with the ease of catching the ball.
You put up a great post about how the partially deflated volleyball probably isn't the best quaffle for us. Do you think there's a ball from another current sport that would fit better? I've heard a lot of talk about youth size soccer balls, team handball, and water polo balls
After a few wikipedia searches, I honestly can't say what type of ball would be best.
I'd rule out the water polo ball. They're about half a pound heavier than what we're using now, and roughly the same size, so that wouldn't solve any problems.
A youth soccer ball could work, probably either size 2 or 3, but it would all depend on how well they can be handled in the elements.
Of all of the balls that currently exist I could see handballs doing well. Apparently handball began as an outside sport (pretty much soccer with your hands) and then moved inside (which could be indicative of the future of quidditch). Maybe something like that would work.
On Facebook I've also seen a lot of mention of the Kronum balls, and all are mixed reviews. It makes me wonder, though, if a sport like Kronum (which is really only played in a single US state) warrants its own unique ball, maybe a sport as widespread as quidditch needs one as well.
I heard the IQA was looking at making its own ball over a year ago, but I haven't heard anything since.
