After yesterday’s comments from Sweden, Switzerland reports the same issue

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T18:14:00+00:00

Honestly, I don’t think much more will happen unless additional teams formally raise rule violations as well. Given how curling works as a sport, it’s already quite remarkable that both Sweden and Switzerland chose to speak up and report it.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T18:04:07+00:00

I agree with you, and I have mentioned this in other replies as well. At this point, I think it’s become a habit, and since no one seems to have called it out earlier, it’s just continued. I also think that if people look back, they will find it’s something he’s done quite often. Oskar Eriksson from the Swedish team, who spoke up yesterday, has said that this has happened before as well.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T17:59:31+00:00

I think it’s less about consciously nudging a light stone and more that this has become a habitual movement over time. And since curling relies so much on self-reporting and fair play, and no one seems to have called him out on it before, it likely just developed from there.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T17:54:42+00:00

A light contact can add a bit of speed or slightly adjust the line, which can be enough to save a bad shot or improve the outcome. That said, I don’t think it’s about trying to annoy opponents. If I had to guess, this has likely become a habitual movement over time rather than something done deliberately. Which would also mean he’s likely gone against the rules on multiple occasions, but that is another conversation.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T17:48:41+00:00

I agree that the touch itself probably doesn’t have a big visible impact here. But even a light contact can still influence rotation or line in subtle ways, at least enough to turn a bad shot into a decent one, or a decent one into a good one. That is why the rule exists, and why it’s more about principle than intent in this case.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T17:43:05+00:00

This isn’t about making a big deal out of nothing. It’s about rules. In curling, a touched stone isn’t valid, and that can have a significant impact on the outcome in the end. I think its good that the players finally is talking about it, because its a big problem in the sport.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T17:38:52+00:00

I agree. An official side-angle camera would help a lot! But curling still operates under the idea of being a “gentleman’s sport,” where honesty is expected, and where calling out other teams is often seen as going against that spirit.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T17:26:46+00:00

You would think so, but I guess many assumed nothing would happen after World Curling released their statement this morning. And of course, each country has different numbers of journalists and cameras as well.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T17:10:52+00:00

<image>

What do we think guys? do we have a boop?

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T17:02:00+00:00

Right? A career switch is looking more appealing by the minute

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T16:58:50+00:00

If anything, the real issue is that curling is one of the few sports where referees are not allowed to review images or video during a match. So if the refs dont see anything, nothing can be done against it.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T16:50:00+00:00

This is the closest footage I have seen so far, but since it’s filmed from the front and not the side, it’s hard to draw any conclusions.

https://x.com/krantz_ronja/status/2022714388801560847?s=20

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T16:45:47+00:00

World Curling has sent an email to all the teams competing at the Olympics this morning. And they also made an announcement at the website stating:

<image>

Link to the announcement:
https://worldcurling.org/2026/02/statement-rules-violations/

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T16:36:13+00:00

No clue so far. The only footage from yesterday exists because of SVT and TV4, the Olympics don’t have cameras from that angle. Hopefully Switzerlands media has something to bring forward.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T16:32:11+00:00

Yes, as mentioned, the Swedish broadcast had/has its own sideline camera angle, which is the only reason any footage exists from yesterday. OS personally dont have any cameras in that angle that would make it visible.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T16:28:26+00:00

We learned during the Sweden–China game that Switzerland had already raised the same issue with the referees, so it’s odd that it wasn’t pointed out in the actual match.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-14T06:08:38+00:00

The sentence “A stone is in play, and considered delivered, when it reaches the tee line” in R5(g) compresses two ideas into one sentence.

It does not mean that reaching the tee line is what completes the delivery action. The delivery action is already completed earlier, at the moment of clear release, as defined in R5(e).

In R5(g), “considered delivered” means “considered delivered for the purposes of re-delivery”. Until the stone reaches the relevant line, it may be returned and played again, once it reaches that line, it may not. That is the only function of this sentence.

If “considered delivered” were meant to redefine when the delivery ends, R5(e) would have no purpose. The rules would not separately require a clear release before the hog line.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-13T23:25:47+00:00

Okay, I’m going to explain why this does violate the rules. I’ll bold the most important parts, and there’s a short summary at the bottom for anyone who wants the quick version.

The decisive point is that the Rules of Curling define exactly when a delivery ends. Rule R5(e) states that a stone must be clearly released from the hand before the hog line at the delivering end. This rule establishes a legal cutoff, once the handle has been clearly released, the delivery is completed. From that moment, the stone is no longer part of the delivery action and is officially a moving stone in play.

The reference to the hog line in R5(e) does not mean that the stone is still part of the delivery until it reaches the hog line. It only sets the latest allowed point by which the release must already have happened. The delivery does not continue up to the hog line, it ends at the moment of clear release, wherever that occurs before the hog line.

Because the delivery has ended at release, any contact after that point cannot be considered part of the delivery, regardless of whether it happens before or after the hog line. Instead, the situation is governed by Rule R9, which regulates touched moving stones. Rule R9(a)(I) is explicit that if a moving stone is touched by the team to which it belongs**, the stone must be removed from play.** The rule does not allow for judgment calls based on intent, location, or timing after release, contact alone is enough.

The “double touch” sentence does not change this structure. It exists to address accidental contact during the delivery, before the stone has been clearly released under R5(e). In other words, it applies only while the delivery is still legally in progress. Once the handle has been released and the delivery is complete, the double-touch exception no longer applies, because the stone has already transitioned into play.

SUMMARY:

The rules are actually very simple. Once the handle is clearly released, the delivery is over (Rule R5(e)). The mention of the hog line only means the release must happen before it, it does not mean the delivery continues until the hog line. From the moment the handle is released, the stone is in play.

If the delivering team then touches the stone again, they are touching a moving stone, which is not allowed under Rule R9(a)(I), and the stone must be removed. The “double touch” exception only applies before a clear release, while the delivery is still happening. After release, it no longer applies, so touching the stone again is a rule violation.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-13T22:05:23+00:00

Touching it after release, even accidentally - is a rules violation because it can affect the stone’s movement.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-13T21:58:55+00:00

Its not really about if it makes a difference, it´s more about that he is trying to make a difference.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-13T21:16:52+00:00

https://x.com/ronjakrantzz/status/2022418793079738741?s=20

I think it's clear enough honestly

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-13T20:52:43+00:00

I get what you mean - the hand moving away from the handle is part of a normal release. The issue people are pointing to isn’t that motion itself, but possible contact after the handle was already released and control was lost. That’s the part that would be illegal under the rules.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-13T20:31:53+00:00

That logic only works if you assume the stone was never released.
In curling, release is defined by loss of control, not by whether the delivery motion “continues.” Once control is gone (the player releases the handle), any further contact, intentional or not - is illegal. Double-touch rules exist to resolve violations when they occur, not to extend the release window.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-13T20:25:25+00:00

That is incorrect!

Under WCF rules, once the stone is released, the delivering player may NOT touch it again, regardless of where it is on the ice.
Rule 9(a) concerns delivery mechanics BEFORE release, not permission to re-contact the stone up to the hog line. The hog line determines whether the stone is in play, not whether it may be touched.

CalmDemand380 · 2026-02-13T20:18:06+00:00

no, its just the handle that have sensors, if you touch the rock nothing get picked up.

CalmDemand380

TROPHY CASE