The ice at the Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics has seen more than just sweeping and strategy this week. A controversy surrounding alleged “double-touching” by Canadian curlers has ignited debate about fair play and the nuances of the sport. Accusations leveled against both Marc Kennedy and Rachel Homan have raised questions about whether incidental contact with the stone after release can provide an unfair advantage, or if the concerns are largely unfounded.
The debate centers on a rule intended to ensure the integrity of the game, but its application – and the potential impact of a minor infraction – are now under intense scrutiny. While the act of touching a curling stone after release is technically a violation, many within the curling community believe that any effect on the stone’s trajectory would be negligible. This has led to accusations of gamesmanship and a tense atmosphere as the Olympic tournament progresses.
The controversy first surfaced during Canada’s match against Sweden on Friday, February 13, when Swedish vice-captain Oskar Eriksson accused Kennedy of illegally touching the stone after releasing it. According to reports, Kennedy responded with a profanity-laced retort, stating, “You can f*** off,” and denying the accusation. NBC New York detailed the heated exchange.
The following day, an umpire accused Canadian skip Rachel Homan of a similar infraction during Canada’s match against Switzerland. Play was briefly halted, and the stone in question was removed from play. Both Kennedy and Homan have vehemently denied any intentional wrongdoing. Adding another layer to the situation, Scottish curler Bobby Lammie was also reported to have touched a stone after releasing it on Sunday, CBC Sports reported.
What Does the Curling Community Say?
Experts are divided on whether a double-touch can actually influence a stone’s path. Eugene Hritzuk, a Canadian curler with over 60 years of experience in the sport, believes the concerns are overblown. “No. The double-touching that I’ve seen has been incidental contact, and that’s fingers brushing or hand brushing on a 40-pound piece of granite,” Hritzuk stated. He added, “What can fingers brushing against a 40-pound piece of granite do in any event? You need the palm on your hand against that stone to do anything.”
John Cullen, a Canadian curling commentator and host of the podcast Broomgate: A Curling Scandal, echoed this sentiment, stating that most top curlers believe double-touching has no discernible effect on the stone. He explained that the handles are very close to the rock, with only a 5 to 7.5 centimeter (two to three inches) separation, meaning incidental contact is common. “No curler would have ever called that on another curler as a violation, because no top curler believes that that actually does anything,” Cullen said.
The Rule and Its Purpose
Despite the skepticism about its impact, many agree that the double-touch rule serves a purpose. Cullen noted that the rule is necessary to prevent extreme scenarios where a player might deliberately attempt to alter a stone’s course after release. “On some level, you need this rule because you don’t want there to be some outlier where someone sees a grey area and starts to deliver the rock in a way that we’ve never seen before,” he explained.
However, Mike Harris, a Canadian curler and Olympic commentator, questioned the motivation behind Sweden’s accusation. “Why would they bring it up on this stage? I consider a lot of people are asking the question,” Harris said, suggesting a possible strategic intent. Cullen also raised the possibility that Sweden’s timing – bringing up the issue only after losing to Canada – might be suspect, questioning whether it was an attempt to disrupt the Canadian team.
The incident has sparked a wider conversation about sportsmanship and the pressures of Olympic competition. While the physical impact of a double-touch may be minimal, the psychological effect – and the potential for distraction – could be significant.
As the curling tournament continues, officials will undoubtedly be paying closer attention to releases and potential infractions. The focus now shifts back to the competition itself, but the shadow of this controversy will likely linger as teams vie for a spot on the podium. What comes next will be to see if the governing bodies of curling will address the ambiguity of the rule and provide clearer guidance for umpires and players alike.
What are your thoughts on the double-touching controversy? Share your opinions in the comments below.
