Curling’s Uncharacteristic Outbursts: When Sportsmanship Meets Pressure Cooker
The Winter Olympics often brings lesser-known sports into the global spotlight, and for many, curling is the quintessential example. It’s a discipline that conjures images of quiet concentration, precise sweeping, and an almost unfathomable politeness among competitors. The sight of athletes meticulously guiding a heavy stone across the ice, often punctuated by encouraging high-fives, paints a picture of serene sportsmanship. This perception, however, has been dramatically challenged recently by a series of controversies that have thrust the sport into an uncharacteristic and unwelcome glare.
For the uninitiated, curling’s fundamental rules appear straightforward. The core principle is that once a stone crosses the ‘hog line’ – akin to an offside rule in other sports – players are forbidden from touching it directly. Their only permissible interaction is with their brush, used to influence the stone’s speed and direction by sweeping the ice in front of it. This seemingly simple rule, however, has become the epicentre of recent tensions.
The ‘Double Touch’ Infraction and a Verbal Blow-Up
A significant flashpoint occurred during a men’s round-robin match between Canada and Sweden. Swedish curler Oskar Eriksson accused Canadian third Marc Kennedy of a ‘double touch’ infraction. This means Kennedy allegedly touched the stone twice after it had passed the hog line. While the rules strictly prohibit this, the specific nature of the infraction – Kennedy reportedly touching the granite of the stone rather than its handle – meant that the available technology failed to register a violation.
This grey area in the rules led to an uncharacteristic and heated exchange. Kennedy, seemingly frustrated by the accusation, reportedly told Eriksson to “f— off.” This outburst was a stark departure from the sport’s widely held image of decorum.
Andrew Swain, Nine’s Olympics curling commentator and a member of Australia’s ‘Curlews’ team, shared his insights on the unfolding situation. “It’s a very polite game, curling,” Swain explained. “It’s a game that people – if you do something wrong – you’re expected to own up to it right away. And on the other side of that, you wouldn’t be called out for doing something wrong, if you know what I mean.”
Swain highlighted the contrast between the usual atmosphere and the recent events. “Having been exposed to the competition here, whilst they’re competitive and want to win, everyone’s super friendly and offering advice to people who are new to the sport and really want to bring people in. You compare that to what we’ve just seen in Cortina, which is the highest level of competition. You can just see the pressure cooker building and building over there. And in one big moment, with the Canadians getting called out by the Swedish team.”
The concept of sportsmanship is deeply ingrained in curling, often formalised through awards like the ‘Spirit of Curling’ award. Swain himself was a recipient of this award at a recent national championship, recognising him for being “a good competitor, and being someone that plays by the rules, plays fair.”
“One of the big things in curling, not just in Australia, but globally in the sport they talk about is the ‘spirit of curling,'” Swain reiterated. “Generally, (they) award a ‘spirit of curling’ award to people in a lot of tournaments around the world, it’s a thing. I went down a bit of a rabbit hole around what that actually is. Essentially, it’s about (not doing) anything to bring the game down.”
A Ripple Effect of Accusations
The controversy didn’t end with the Canadian men’s team. Soon after, their women’s team faced a similar accusation during a match against Switzerland, resulting in a stone being removed from play. Great Britain then found itself embroiled in the same debate. In a ninth-end match against Germany, Scottish curler Bobby Lammie was accused by officials of touching a stone after its release.
The Technology Dilemma
These incidents have ignited a significant discussion about curling’s reliance on human umpires and its lack of advanced video replay technology. Unlike many modern sports that leverage technology to scrutinise every infraction, curling has historically relied on officials positioned at the sidelines. Their decisions are, for the most part, final.
“Another interesting part of this whole discussion is the use of technology. We’re living in a 2026 where technology is used in every sport to analyse different infractions,” Swain observed. “Curling has never been a sport where that has been used. Probably the biggest bit of technology that has been used in recent times for curling is the red and green light on the stone itself, which basically tells you if you had a hog line infraction or not.”
He elaborated on the specific issue: “There is no hog line infraction when there’s a green light, when you let go of the handle of the stone. But for someone then touching the stone after that, the actual granite on the stone, that’s not allowed. That’s a burnt stone, but it doesn’t show up with the technology.”
This technological gap, Swain suggests, can lead to suspicions, even if unfounded. “That does lend itself to accusations that they had planned this. Not that I’m going to accuse them of that, because I wouldn’t do that, but it’s not something that you’d regularly see in curling.”
In response to the mounting concerns, World Curling initially deployed two umpires to monitor play across multiple matches. However, they later adjusted this policy, making the umpires available upon request from teams rather than assigning them by default.
“I think it’s a really interesting discussion for World Curling to now have around that technology and whether they do need to look into using some sort of technology, whether it shows up as a red light when you double-touch the stone,” Swain mused. “There’s a discussion to be had there, because every other sport has gone through some pain at some point when it comes to the use of technology. You look at soccer with VAR, and cricket with the snicko. Every sport has gone through this sort of pain.”
The Unfiltered World of Mic’d-Up Athletes
A unique and often celebrated aspect of curling broadcasts is that all competitors are mic’d up for the duration of their games. This allows viewers to hear every strategic discussion, every hushed instruction, and even the occasional grumble. However, the recent controversies have brought a different kind of audio into the public domain: expletive-laden outbursts directed at opponents.
“One of the things that I’ve loved about international competition and watching the real pros go at it, is the fact that they’re mic’d up the whole time, right?” Swain commented. “Because there’s not many other sports that every competitor is mic’d up and you can hear every word that they say the whole time. And I’m sure that there are things mumbled under breath and stuff like that… generally (they) would be swearing when you throw a bad shot or whatever.”
He stressed the novelty of the recent events: “For someone to actually direct that foul language at another competitor just doesn’t happen in curling. So it’s been really interesting.”
The aftermath of the Canadian incident saw Kennedy offer an apology. Swain noted this as a positive reflection of the sport’s ethos. “And that is probably in the spirit of curling. He apologised for his language. He’s apologised… not directly to (the Swedish) team, but I think he apologised for bringing the sport into disrepute and to the junior curling team community that he is a role model to, for using that kind of language.”
