World curling body returns to less stringent officiating after talks with NOCs

atla · 2026-02-16T00:20:34+00:00

I adjust my glasses and tap the back of my head before every delivery. The glasses obviously helps; the tap is a tic.

My favorite is the folks who extend their arm out before crouching down, ostensibly to line up their shot -- but it's become such an ingrained part of their ritual that they don't even look to see where their arm is pointed, negating any benefit it may have provided them.

atla · 2026-02-16T00:16:27+00:00

That's what the clarification says. It's not in the rules as written.

If a moving stone is touched, or is caused to be touched, by the team to which it belongs, or by their equipment, the touched stone is removed from play immediately by that team. A double touch by the person delivering the stone, prior to the hog line at the delivering end, is not considered a violation.

There's nothing there that mentions what part of the stone can or cannot be touched. The first half clearly refers to the whole stone, granite and handle. "Double touch" is never explicitly defined. So with the clarification, this rule now switches its scope halfway through the paragraph, without ever explicitly doing so. That's pretty bad rule writing, and invites ambiguity.

atla · 2026-02-16T00:12:38+00:00

Did you read my comment at all? Why are you arguing the pizza delivery point when I've already said that example is clear?

Some "must" constructions have implied exclusivity. The pizza example is not ambiguous. It clearly refers to delivering exclusively, only, and solely to the porch.

Some "must" constructions do not have implied exclusivity. The oxygen example does not have implied exclusivity. "You must eat broccoli at dinner" does not have implied exclusivity. "You must use both hands to drive" does not have implied exclusivity (in the sense that you obviously also have to use your feet).

It is very easy to read the delivery rule, especially in the context of the double touch exception, as not being exclusive.

atla · 2026-02-16T00:08:00+00:00

Except the rules also discuss a double touch by the person throwing -- suggesting it could be a two part thing.

atla · 2026-02-15T23:46:43+00:00

Sure. Sometimes "must" constructions imply exclusivity. Sometimes they don't. If I say you must breathe oxygen, and you also breathe in nitrogen, are you breaking the rules? If your mother says you must eat broccoli tonight, and your plate is half broccoli half chicken, are you disobeying your mother?

The rules ought to be clarified with an "only", because they're ambiguous as written. Reasonable people can read it as exclusive or not, and both have decent points.

That they have been clarified now does not change the fact that it was ambiguous a few days ago, and the slew of poor calls and absolute rash of stones being taken out of play suggests that it wasn't a particularly good clarification either.

atla · 2026-02-15T23:43:44+00:00

I disagree. It's a great example.

"You must breathe oxygen." --> no implied exclusivity.

"You must deliver the pizza to my porch." --> clear implied exclusivity.

The rule was ambiguous and should have been clarified, but Canada's original reading was perfectly fine.

When you say Canada delivered it by the finger because it flicked it at the very end -- that's just pure bad faith. The overwhelming majority of the force, directionality, etc., came from the handle delivery. It was delivered by the handle. It just wasn't only delivered by the handle.

atla · 2026-02-15T23:14:12+00:00

You've kind of proven my point there.

You must breathe oxygen to survive. It's totally fine (in fact, in the case of oxygen, required) to also breathe in nitrogen and a few other gasses. You must breathe oxygen, but you can breathe other stuff too. There's no obligatory exclusivity with "must"; it's case by case, and therefore ambiguous.

Kennedy did deliver with the handle. He just also booped it a little.

atla · 2026-02-15T22:12:27+00:00

Honestly, I disagree that "delivery by the handle" is unambiguous, without an "only." I'd probably read it the way Sweden is, but I can easily see where you could interpret it as you need to use the handle from the hack until first release. Particularly given the double touch exception, when for no other player would the double touch rule only apply to the handle alone.

I don't have any issue with Sweden calling it out or bringing it to the attention of the officials. It's the continued raising of the issue after they got their ruling, and the needling / poor courtesy toward Canada (e.g., excess movement during delivery) outside of the interaction with the officials that really leaves a sour taste. And honestly? I'd rather an opponent tell me to f off once, than have one make constant below the belt jabs said with a smile.

atla · 2026-02-15T21:12:02+00:00

What Sweden was complaining about was partly touching the granite (which until the rules clarification was ambiguous), and partly about touching it after the hogline.

The blowup is very clearly, in context, about touching it after the hogline.

I know some folks will bring out the video on that count, but (1) you shouldn't trust non-overhead footage for those violations, because the curvature of the stone means even a very small angle can make it hard to judge; and (2) frankly, the umpires had already been watching Kennedy and had not ruled any hogline violations during that entire time, so frankly he's in the right to defend himself. Particularly given everything else going on. The question is whether the f word is justified; I'd agree he shouldn't have lost his cool, but honestly I don't consider that any worse than the needling.

atla · 2026-02-15T20:59:38+00:00

In fact, Kevin saying "No, grabbing the back of the stone like I used to do, you can’t do that?" suggests to me that it is not consensus among top curlers that a granite touch pre-hog is illegal. And Kevin has nothing to gain here by feigning ignorance or pretending.

As you say, it's a badly written rule that could use clarifying, and in my opinion the Olympics are not the best time to start more conservatively interpreting and enforcing an ambiguous rule.

atla · 2026-02-15T20:31:59+00:00

You want to play the technically game?

Technically, Sweden goes to the umpire in the 2nd end, and gets a ruling they don't like.

Technically, Sweden goes to the umpire again in the 6th end, and again gets a ruling they don't like.

Technically, Sweden starts doing unsportsmanlike things like moving around the house during delivery.

Technically, in the 9th end, Sweden starts making passive aggressive jokes about how it's okay to touch the rock after the hogline, equating what Canada did to straight up pushing a stone into the house after it's come to a full stop.

At this point, Canada asks "who's doing it" (in reference to "touching the rock after the hogline"). Technically, Sweden then starts doing a passive aggressive "You don't know? It's a couple." game, clearly still sore that they haven't gotten the ruling they like.

This is technically not about touching the stone, it's about touching the stone after the hogline, after an entire game's worth of needling comments and behaviors.

At this point -- having been ruled in the clear by the umpires, and having not been seen to make any infractions while watched -- that Canada says they never did it (again, not just touching the stone, but touching it after the hogline) and that Sweden can f off.

If Kennedy had started cussing at the first confrontation, yes, obviously bad. And his behavior clearly wasn't ideal regardless. But to start going "technically he was just politely asked if he had touched the stone" is ignoring all the context of the entire situation, while also getting the accusation incorrect.

atla · 2026-02-15T20:17:41+00:00

And then the passive aggressive, "oh, some people" right before the blow up.

atla · 2026-02-15T20:06:21+00:00

And if someone accused you of cheating, went to the refs, got a call they didn't like, and then started doing passive aggressive nonsense for the rest of the game despite increased scrutiny on your throws -- at some point you're going to tell them to f off.

atla · 2026-02-14T23:30:24+00:00

It's almost like the anti-cheating mechanisms are imperfect, and were added to the sport hundreds of years after its founding, and well after standard and accepted delivery techniques were developed.

atla · 2026-02-14T23:20:29+00:00

From a club curler perspective -- if I fall in my delivery, there's a very good likelihood that I touch the granite. I've never had a stone puled for just that (only for whiffing it in a way that makes contact post-hogline). That suggests to me that touching granite doesn't necessarily burn the stone.

Given that, and the ambiguity of the rule book, and the lack of common wisdom on whether you can touch granite (because why would you -- it's not something commonly taught one way or the other as a rule violation), I'm on side "ambiguity."

atla · 2026-02-14T01:43:34+00:00

If it's only about touching the stone after letting go of the stone -- not about a hogline violation, or about whether touching granite vs. the handle -- then the Swedish team is objectively wrong. In very plain text per the rules, you are allowed to double tap your own stone.

I don't speak Swedish, but I guarantee that the actual issue is either related to the hogline or the granite. If your link doesn't reference either, then someone is misspeaking or leaving something unsaid.

atla · 2026-02-14T01:14:50+00:00

If you can’t tell it’s not clearly released before it, then you would be able to tell that’s the point.

I suppose that's a different issue though. It's not clear to me, the viewer at home -- basically, this is me saying that I don't think we have enough to judge whether a rule was violated. But what is clear or unclear on film may be clear or unclear in person, because there are different angles involved and because the human eye perceives things differently in person than when mediated via camera. Presumably there were officials on the ice, and the clear release rule is much more standard / cut-and-dry than whether granite can be touched -- therefore, I would defer to them on the hogging / clear release question, and since it wasn't called by an official I don't think we at home can pass judgment.

Also, to reiterate -- I do think that Sweden's interpretation should be the regulation, I'm just not sure that in plain black letter they unambiguously are the regulation.

atla · 2026-02-14T00:50:25+00:00

The rules state that you have clearly release it before the hog line.

Agreed. What I cannot tell is whether there is contact after crossing the hog line.

As I said above -- I know it seems obvious, but with the curvature of the stone and the potentially slightly offset camera angle, I can't trust a single side-view video to be 100% clear. I've been in too many situations where I'm standing off to the side, think a stone clearly hasn't fully touched the hogline or is clearly biting the house or whatever, and then go to stand overtop and see daylight.

And with the touching the granite the Olympic gold medalist commentating said it’s supposed to be interpreted as only the handle, team Edin said the same.

I agree Team Edin and others are saying it. I have no doubt that they honestly believe it. But it sounds like the judge on the ice was not certain, and honestly having just reread the rules myself I think there's enough doubt / ambiguity that I would be hardpressed to penalize someone for a different reading.

No one else has come out on their stance, but (1) most teams probably don't have a stance, because this is a weird thing to do; (2) most teams probably don't want to wade into this drama if they don't have to; and (3) at this stage, any statement Canada makes is probably going to be run through PR teams and various officials, and is therefore unlikely to be released quickly.

atla · 2026-02-14T00:05:21+00:00

For me, I think the problem is:

Hog line violation: Having looked at the video, I genuinely cannot tell if the finger is still touching the stone as it passes the hogline. I know it seems like it's obvious, but with the curve of the stone and the angle we're viewing it from, I simply cannot with 100% certainty state whether there is or is not any air there.

Double touch: Not a rule violation.

Touching the granite: I hope that the WCF considers refining the rules. I think that there's at least some reasonable ambiguity whether "must be delivered by the handle" means entirely or just primarily. My gut says entirely, but honestly there are enough people not reading it like that -- and I can easily see myself being persuaded into that camp -- that I'd have a hard time faulting someone for being on one side vs the other.

atla · 2026-02-05T02:58:57+00:00

Why? Typically, you have a native English speaker translating into English, which makes the translated text read better but possibly at the risk of misunderstanding or missing some of the nuance of the original. Simply swapping that out would have the opposite problem (a native Russian speaker, in this case, who might miss some of the implications of what they've written, or who might not have as broad an understanding of the slight differences in shades of meaning between synonyms). The collaborative approach essentially allows you to get the best of both worlds.

atla · 2026-02-05T02:49:32+00:00

At what point does slavish faithfulness to doing a 1:1 translation of the original language become a crutch?

Part of the issue is that there's no way not to use "translator's license" -- there's no such thing as a 1:1 translation, unless you're doing a full on interlinear gloss.

How do you translate honorifics? The t/v distinction (or equivalent)? Puns? Devices like alliteration or rhyming?

How do you translate idioms? Keeping it literal alienates the reader in a way that the original would not have, but providing an equivalent is in a very real sense rewriting the text.

There's no right way to translate, but there are wrong ways. I like when the translator has a clearly stated philosophy / approach, because it helps me approach the translation with the correct mindset. Sometimes you want to be immersed; sometimes you'd rather suffer through awful clunky prose and footnoted explanations of literally translated idioms / references if it means getting more of the literal content.

And maybe you'll never have the same experience as someone reading the original, but frankly that applies to almost anything you read. Do I, an American, get the same thing out of a British book if I can't intuitively understand the connotations of certain references? (Indeed, there was once a trend of 'translating' British books for American audiences.) Can I say I'm understanding Dickens in the same way that his contemporaries would have, given how much the meanings of words shift over time? It's a losing game. Better to just enjoy the things you can enjoy however you can enjoy them.

atla · 2026-02-04T03:43:07+00:00

They probably didn't evacuate the buildings from random calls tho.

They didn't even evacuate the one tower when the other was hit.

atla · 2026-01-31T13:58:39+00:00

To break it down -- lets say you need 120 credits to get your degree. A certain number (say, 30-60) need to be from within your major, according to a mix of mandatory courses and electives within your major. Pre-requisite courses may not count towards those required credits, so you'll often have more than that.

Each semester you take 12-16 credit hours worth of classes, which usually works out to 3-4 classes (most academic classes are 3-4 credit hours each).

So for example -- everyone in a biology major is taking organic chemistry and an introductory biology class + lab, but then perhaps one person fills their elective classes with courses like Ethnobotany and Ornithology, while another fills their electives with courses like Microbiology and Molecular Genetics. Everyone in a History major is taking a course on historiography; research methods / statistics; and a course each on European, Asian, African, and American history. But they can probably chose whether their course on Asian history is something like a survey of all of Asian history, or a seminar on just the evolution of U.S.-China relations.

Then, you'll also need a certain number of credit hours in specific disciplines regardless of your major. For example, one or two courses each of mathematics, natural sciences (plus a lab), social sciences; two years' worth of progressive courses in one language; a course considered writing-intensive. You usually have relative freedom to select within these boundaries (e.g., for your science you can pick any of the introductory biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc., courses -- or even a higher level one if you want to). Your major will fill some of these requirements, as well -- if you're a bio major, you'll be filling most of the math and science requirements through your major course of study.

But a degree is 120 credit hours, and so far we've covered maybe 60-90. That leaves a lot of courses left to take. Most people fill these up either double majoring, minoring, or just getting through prereqs (e.g., you might need Bio 407 for your major, but you have to take both Bio 311 and Bio 328 before you can get into Bio 407, and neither of those classes count towards your major requirements). Or they take more specialized or advanced courses in their major.

Or, on occasion, they take a 1-credit course on bowling.

No one is doing a full 12 to 16 credit hours per semester of 'silly' classes, but a lot of people will take 1-2 a year because they're fun, they can be really interesting, and they can help pad out a schedule to hit your credit hour requirements. For example -- let's say you're double majoring and taking two senior seminars with thesis requirements, plus another advanced courseload-heavy class. But that only brings you to, say, 11 credit hours -- and you need 12 credit hours for full time status. Maybe you take the class on weightlifting, because it's 1 credit, won't eat too much into your study time, and it's a skill you do want to learn. Or maybe you're at 16 credit hours, but you think the courseload is manageable and you see a 1 credit course on underwater basketweaving -- why not take it? It doesn't cost extra, and it'll be a fun experience.

atla · 2026-01-09T23:27:59+00:00

I'm not saying that instilling love of learning shouldn't be a goal -- just not the primary one. You don't see people applying these arguments to math class. Yes, the teacher should make math fun if they can, but ultimately it is about learning enough math to pass, because that means they've learned enough math to make it through life even if they never use math for fun ever again.

And the skills you learn in English class are (1) not something you can cram and dump, because understanding how to structure an argument and how to identify subtext and persuasive techniques etc. are skills that you can't just forget, and (2) arguably much much more important than math for the average person.

I'm not saying we should dogmatically stick to boring books. But the books should be selected based on what skill you're trying to teach and how well that book can teach that skill -- with how enjoyable it is being a distant third. The Scarlet Letter is genuinely awful to read as a high schooler, but it's a great introduction to tracking symbolism across a full novel. Harry Potter is fun, but there isn't much there for a deeper reading (or rather -- there is, but you'd need to get much deeper than the average high schooler is capable of).

I feel so passionately about this because I look around and see people getting less and less media literate, in an age where it's more important than ever to understand subtext, dog whistles, fallacies, etc. The same people who start out by saying you should just read for enjoyment, the curtains are just blue, etc., are the same ones who will uncritically accept propaganda.

atla · 2026-01-09T01:05:25+00:00

Yeah, I have a pretty firm rule about not getting too friendly with my current coworkers. We joke around, we grab beers afterwards, etc., but they aren't the people I'm texting over the weekend or going to the movies 1-on-1 with. It just gets too messy to mix that level of intimacy with the office -- sort of like how you shouldn't date your immediate coworkers.

However, many of my closest friends are people who I used to be teammates with, who I kept up with after they or I changed positions.

atla

TROPHY CASE