The Curling Controversy Everyone's Debating Gets the Rule Wrong [2025]

The Match That Broke the Internet (For Two Days)

Friday afternoon at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina, something unusual happened on a curling sheet. Not the curling itself—that's usual. The argument was the unusual part.

Canada's Marc Kennedy, the vice-skip of his team, got into a verbal altercation with Sweden's Oskar Eriksson. Voices escalated. Profanity flew. Kennedy told Eriksson to fuck off, not once but twice. He also declared, with maximum dismissiveness, that he "didn't give a shit" about the rule being debated.

Within hours, every major news outlet had covered it. According to PBS NewsHour, within a day, social media was flooded with amateur analysis from people who'd never watched curling before in their lives. Everyone suddenly had an opinion on whether Kennedy had violated the rules by touching the stone after it crossed the hog line. Some people made memes. Others posted video clips slowed down to frame-by-frame analysis, as if they were investigating a presidential assassination.

The internet had found a new micro-controversy to obsess over, and curling—a sport that normally gets two weeks of attention every four years—was suddenly everywhere.

Here's the thing though: almost everyone debating the incident was focused on the wrong rule entirely.

Why Everyone Became a Curling Expert Overnight

Curling isn't a mainstream sport in most of the world. In Canada, the UK, and Scandinavia, it's got real followings. In the United States, most people couldn't explain the rules if their life depended on it. Yet suddenly, millions of casual Olympic viewers thought they understood the intricate ruleset of a 500-year-old Scottish sport.

This is what the internet does. It finds a conflict, especially one involving an Olympic athlete doing something technically questionable on camera, and it turns everyone into an expert. The video evidence existed. You could watch Kennedy's hand come down on the rock. You could debate whether his fingers had technically touched the stone after the "nose" of the stone crossed the hog line.

It was the perfect storm of accessibility and ambiguity. The rule violation appeared quantifiable—either his hand touched the stone or it didn't. The video evidence was right there. And because most people had zero baseline knowledge of curling, they approached it like they'd approach any other rules dispute: with confidence and zero actual understanding.

The reality is more complicated. Yes, Kennedy appears to have violated the rule. But that violation had virtually no impact on the match outcome. More importantly though, it wasn't the actual problem with what happened that day.

Estimated data suggests that 45% of the public discussion focused on conduct and respect, while 30% focused on the rule violation itself. The remaining were indifferent or had other opinions.

The Double-Touch Rule, Explained Simply

Curling has thousands of rules. Some are major. Some are so obscure that even club-level curlers debate them over beer.

The double-touch rule is relatively straightforward: once you release the stone, you can't touch it again. More specifically, you can't touch it after the nose of the stone (the front-most part) has crossed the hog line. The hog line is a line painted on the ice about 30 feet from the hack, which is where you start your throw.

Kennedy appears to have very lightly tapped the back of the stone after the nose had crossed the hog line. It was a gentle tap, barely perceptible, the kind of thing that happens maybe five times per match at the professional level. The video evidence shows it. You can see his hand come down.

But here's what matters: the impact on the actual game was zero. Kennedy was throwing a stone that was already traveling in the direction it needed to go. His light tap didn't change the stone's trajectory in any meaningful way. The hog line itself is 93 feet from the center of the target on the other end of the rink. A fraction of an inch of deflection at the release point has almost no bearing on where the stone ends up.

Additionally—and this is crucial to understanding why the internet's obsession with this rule is weird—video evidence from the same Olympics suggests that other teams, including Sweden, have engaged in similar light double-tapping. One Swedish curler's own throw shows what looks like a double-touch. If you're going to accuse Kennedy of cheating via a double-touch, the standards need to apply equally to everyone.

So the armchair experts who spent the weekend analyzing Kennedy's hand position were technically correct that a rule violation occurred. They were wrong about virtually everything else.

The Real Problem Nobody's Talking About

Forget the double-touch rule for a moment. Forget the technical debate about whether Kennedy's fingers actually made contact with the stone.

Curling has a rule that supersedes all other rules. It's called the Spirit of Curling, and it exists in the official rulebook. Here's what it says:

"A true curler never attempts to distract opponents, nor to prevent them from playing their best, and would prefer to lose rather than to win unfairly."

That's it. That's the foundational principle of the entire sport.

Curling didn't develop its culture from boardrooms or corporate sponsorships. It came from Scottish villages in the 1600s, from games played on frozen ponds by people who understood that competitive integrity mattered more than winning. The sport codified a philosophy that honor comes before victory. You play by the rules not because officials are watching, but because maintaining the integrity of the game matters more than your ego.

This is why the Kennedy-Eriksson incident is actually damaging to curling. Not because Kennedy might have committed a minor technical infraction. Because both teams violated the Spirit of Curling, and they did it during an Olympic match, in front of the world, at a moment when the sport was watching.

The Canadians violated the spirit when Kennedy told Eriksson to "fuck off" and declared he didn't give a shit about the rule being debated. That's not how you handle a competitive disagreement in curling. You might be angry. You might think the opposing team is wrong. But you handle it with dignity.

The Swedes violated the spirit first, though. After the judges decided not to call the double-touch, Sweden continued to complain about it and started "chirping"—curling terminology for talking trash—at the Canadians during play. You lose a rules argument to the officials, and then you accept that decision and move on. You don't spend the rest of the match reminding your opponents that you think they cheated.

Both teams broke the foundational rule of their sport on the same afternoon. That's the real controversy.

Estimated data shows curling has a significantly calmer crowd atmosphere compared to other Olympic sports, highlighting its unique cultural values.

The Role of the Vice-Skip, and Why That Makes It Worse

Here's a detail most people missed: the altercation involved the third throwers from each team, also known as the vice-skips.

In curling, the skip is the captain and primary decision-maker. The vice-skip is the team's administrator. The vice-skip's job includes calling their own fouls, settling disputes about rules, managing the score, and ultimately deciding when to concede a match if the situation becomes hopeless.

You could compare this to golf, where players are expected to call penalties on themselves. The vice-skip is entrusted with a responsibility that goes beyond just throwing rocks. They're responsible for the sport's integrity.

For the two players most responsible for keeping the game fair and positive to have been the ones engaged in a profanity-filled altercation about a minor rule is especially damaging. It's like having the referees get into a screaming match with each other. The sport relies on the assumption that the people in charge care about maintaining standards.

Kennedy broke that trust. Eriksson damaged it first by complaining after the ruling, but Kennedy's response—telling him to fuck off—escalated the situation beyond what should have happened. When you're in a position of authority, you have a responsibility to maintain composure, especially in a sport that's built on the concept of personal honor.

Kennedy later told reporters he "probably could've handled it better," but he refused to apologize for "defending my teammates and standing up for myself." This is technically true. You should stand up for yourself. But curling has always been a sport where standing up for yourself and doing so with dignity are supposed to go hand-in-hand. Telling someone to fuck off isn't standing up for yourself. It's losing your temper.

What the Rulebook Actually Says About These Situations

Curling's official rulebook, published by the International Curling Federation, is surprisingly extensive. There are rules about ice maintenance. Rules about the weight of the stone. Rules about sweeping technique. Rules about how long you have to throw. Rules about everything.

But the rules about conduct and disputes are interesting because they're almost all secondary to the Spirit of Curling principle.

If a team believes the other team violated a rule, they can appeal to the official judges. The judges will review the situation and make a ruling. That's it. Once the ruling is made, the match continues. There's no provision for continuing to argue about a decision that's already been made. There's no clause that allows you to chirp at your opponents about a rule violation after the officials have decided the matter.

The rulebook also includes regulations about unsportsmanlike conduct. These are deliberately vague because the sport assumes that curlers will police their own behavior. You don't need detailed rules about what counts as unsportsmanlike conduct if everyone playing understands that you're supposed to be, well, sporting.

The problem with modern curling at the highest levels is that it's becoming professionalized and monetized in a way that's fundamentally at odds with the sport's core values. When there are sponsorships on the line, when there are million-dollar bonuses available, when there are TV contracts and international rankings, the incentive structure changes. You're less likely to accept a ruling gracefully when there's real money involved.

This doesn't excuse Kennedy's behavior. But it explains it. The sport's foundational philosophy was built for amateurs playing for the love of the game, not professionals competing for significant financial stakes.

How This Incident Compares to Other Olympic Disputes

Olympic curling has had other controversial moments, but they typically get resolved quietly, with respect for the rules and the opposing team.

A perfect example happened earlier in the 2026 Olympics, in a doubles match between the United States and Italy. One team accidentally kicked their stone during delivery—essentially touching it after they'd released it, which would normally be a violation. Instead of the opposing team loudly accusing them of cheating and complaining to officials, the other team simply trusted the kicker to put the stone back where it belonged.

No officials were called. No accusations were made. No profanity was exchanged. The stone was replaced, the match continued, and both teams maintained their dignity.

That's how disputes are supposed to work in curling. You handle them with the assumption that your opponent made an honest mistake. You trust them to correct it. If you can't trust them, then the problem isn't the rules—the problem is that the sport has lost the foundation it was built on.

The Kennedy-Eriksson incident could have unfolded the same way. Sweden could have raised the double-touch issue with officials, the officials could have made a ruling, and the match could have continued. Instead, both teams escalated the situation. That's what made it remarkable and damaging.

Estimated data shows that curling receives significant attention during the Winter Olympics, with dedicated fans maintaining interest in non-Olympic years. New fan engagement remains low, highlighting potential growth areas.

The Casual Curling Community's Perspective

I want to be clear about something: I'm not an elite-level curler. I'm a club-level curler who throws in a Thursday night beer league and has won some local bonspiel titles. That means I understand the sport, the culture, and the philosophy behind it. But I'm not playing at the level where the stones have sensors and officials are watching every throw with video analysis.

However, from talking to other curlers—the people who actually play the sport regularly—there's a consistent sentiment about the Kennedy-Eriksson incident. It's embarrassing. Not because Kennedy technically might have committed a rule violation, but because the entire sport just got introduced to millions of new people as a venue for playground-level arguing and profanity.

Curling attracts a certain type of person. We're competitive, sure. We like winning. But we also like the fact that curling provides a refuge from the kind of braggadocio and tantrums you see in other sports. Adult kickball is brutal—people get aggressive and petty. Professional soccer has had players spitting on each other. Baseball has had bench-clearing brawls.

Curling, by contrast, is a sport where the winning team traditionally buys the losing team a round of drinks at the local bar. You compete hard, you play by the rules, you respect your opponent, and then you have a beer together. That's the culture that makes the sport special.

The Kennedy-Eriksson incident threatened to undermine that entire culture. It showed the world that Olympic-level curling might be trending toward the same kind of toxic competitiveness that dominates other sports.

Why This Matters for the Sport's Future

Curling gets about two weeks of global attention every four years during the Winter Olympics. For the rest of the time, it's just dedicated fans and people who actually play. That's always been fine. The sport thrives because of its internal culture, not because it chases mainstream attention.

But the Kennedy-Eriksson incident gave curling a chance to reach a massive audience, and the first impression most people got was of two athletes arguing about rules and telling each other to fuck off. That's not a good way to introduce your sport to potential new fans.

Moreover, curling's governing bodies have to think about what this incident means for the sport's reputation and philosophy. If incidents like this become normalized—if elite curlers start thinking it's acceptable to engage in this kind of behavior—then the sport loses one of its core distinguishing features.

Sports need rules. Curling needs rules about stone weight and sheet maintenance and all the technical stuff. But sports also need culture. And curling's culture is built on the idea that winning with integrity matters more than winning with shortcuts. If that culture erodes, then curling becomes just another sport where athletes care only about the trophy and the money.

Kennedy is a phenomenal curler, a gold medalist, someone who's considered one of the all-time greats from Canada. But this is what he'll be remembered for—at least until the next Olympics. And that's unfortunate for him, but it's also unfortunate for the sport.

The Double Standard in Olympic Sports

Here's something worth considering: if this incident had happened in a different sport, nobody would have cared.

In professional basketball, players trash talk constantly. In football, players get in each other's faces regularly. In hockey—another sport with strong Canadian participation—altercations happen all the time. Athletes get suspended, fined, and then everyone moves on.

But curling is different. Or at least it's supposed to be different. The sport has built its entire identity around being different. And that difference is a feature, not a bug.

The fact that the Kennedy-Eriksson incident is controversial at all is actually evidence of how much curling's culture matters. In other sports, nobody would have batted an eye. In curling, it's cause for international discussion about sportsmanship and the spirit of the game.

That says something important about the sport. It says that curling's fans—the real curling community—care deeply about how the game is played and the values it represents. They're not okay with athletes treating curling like just another competitive arena where anything goes.

But here's the risk: if this kind of behavior becomes more common, the standards will eventually lower. If the next Olympic curling competition has two more incidents like this, and then two more, eventually people will stop being shocked. The culture will shift.

The sport's governing bodies understand this. That's why the incident has been taken seriously, why it's been discussed extensively, and why there's likely to be increased focus on conduct standards going forward.

Estimated data showing that rule management and score management are key responsibilities for a vice-skip, each constituting around 30% of their role.

What Happened to Kennedy After the Incident

After the match, Kennedy acknowledged he could have handled the situation better. He expressed that sentiment to reporters. But he stopped short of a full apology, instead framing his response as defending his teammates and standing up for himself.

This is a legitimate position. Curlers should stand up for themselves and their teammates when they feel wronged. The issue is the method, not the impulse.

Since the incident, Kennedy has maintained a lower profile. He's continued to play, of course—Olympic competition goes on regardless of controversies. But the public conversation around him has shifted. People who would have celebrated him as a gold medalist and one of curling's greats are now more likely to remember this moment.

That's genuinely unfortunate for Kennedy as a person. But it's also an illustration of how important curling's culture is to the sport's identity. In a sport where everybody's supposed to be honorable and dignified, losing your temper and telling someone to fuck off becomes a defining characteristic.

Kennedy is far from the first athlete to do something he regrets under pressure. But he might be the most visible example of it happening in curling.

The Difference Between Breaking Rules and Breaking Spirit

This is the fundamental insight that got lost in all the debate about the double-touch rule.

Breaking a rule is a technical violation. You touch the stone after the hog line, or you put your hand in an illegal position during delivery, or you sweep at the wrong time. These things happen. They get called. People move on.

Breaking the spirit of the sport is different. It's about how you treat your opponent, how you respond when things don't go your way, and whether you're willing to accept that winning with integrity matters more than winning at any cost.

Kennedy might or might not have broken the technical rule. That's what all the video analysis is about. But he definitely broke the spirit of the sport. So did Eriksson, by complaining after the ruling was made.

The real lesson from the Kennedy-Eriksson incident isn't about hog lines or double-touches. It's about what happens when athletes—particularly at the Olympic level—start prioritizing winning over the values that make their sport special.

Curling won't survive as a meaningful Olympic sport if it becomes indistinguishable from every other competitive arena. It survives because it's different. And it's only different because the people who play it, at least traditionally, have cared about that difference.

The Internet's Role in Amplifying the Controversy

It's worth noting that the Kennedy-Eriksson incident probably wouldn't have become international news if it hadn't happened at the Olympics and if it hadn't been so easily shareable on social media.

The clip of Kennedy telling Eriksson to fuck off is dramatic. It's visceral. It's perfect for Twitter and Tik Tok and Reddit discussions. People can watch it in 15 seconds and form an opinion. It's the opposite of most Olympic curling moments, which require you to understand the sport to find interesting.

Social media rewards conflict. It rewards drama. A polite disagreement between two athletes wouldn't trend. A profanity-filled altercation will. So the internet took this incident and amplified it far beyond what it might have received in a pre-social-media era.

This isn't necessarily a criticism of social media—it's just how these platforms work. They prioritize engagement, and conflict is engaging. But it does mean that curling, as a sport, is increasingly subject to the same kind of drama-amplification that affects other sports.

The curling community itself seems acutely aware of this dynamic. Many of the discussions within the sport have focused on the fact that this incident will be what people remember about Olympic curling, even though Olympic curling is also about incredible athletic performances, incredible team dynamics, and remarkable demonstrations of skill.

Estimated data shows that casual curlers value positive sportsmanship and community engagement, with minimal concern for toxic competitiveness.

How Other Curling Nations Are Responding

Canada and Sweden are the two curling powerhouses in the world, along with the United States and several European nations. Both countries take curling seriously, and both are acutely aware of what the Kennedy-Eriksson incident means for the sport.

Canadian curling organizations have been notably quiet about the incident, perhaps sensing that the best response is to let it fade from public consciousness. There hasn't been a major public statement from curling Canada or from Kennedy's organization defending his conduct or attacking Sweden.

Sweden, similarly, hasn't escalated the situation. There's been some discussion about whether Eriksson's conduct was appropriate—complaining after a ruling—but it's been measured and proportionate.

What's interesting is that both nations seem to understand that the sport has something to lose if this kind of conflict becomes normalized. Neither side is trying to win the PR battle. They're trying to move past it.

This is actually consistent with curling's culture. You don't escalate conflicts. You resolve them and move on. The fact that both nations are taking a similar approach suggests that the curling community still values this principle, even at the highest competitive levels.

The Bigger Picture: Professionalization vs. Tradition

The Kennedy-Eriksson incident is really about a tension that's existed in curling for years: the tension between professionalization and tradition.

Curling has historically been an amateur or semi-amateur sport. People played for the love of the game. There were some sponsorships and some prize money, but nothing like what elite athletes in other sports make.

Over the past 10-15 years, that's been changing. Prize pools have gotten larger. Sponsorship opportunities have expanded. The sport has professionalized. There are now full-time curlers who make their living from the sport.

This is good in many ways. It's allowed talented athletes to dedicate themselves fully to curling. It's elevated the skill level of competition. It's brought more resources and infrastructure to the sport.

But it also creates incentives that didn't exist before. When money is significant, when rankings matter, when there are financial consequences to losing, the psychology of competition changes. Athletes become more willing to engage in behaviors they might not engage in if they were playing purely for the love of the sport.

Kennedy and Eriksson aren't the first curlers to be tempted by these new incentives. They probably won't be the last. The question is whether curling's governing bodies can find a way to maintain the sport's core values even as it professionalizes.

What the Future Holds for Olympic Curling

The 2026 Olympics are in Milano Cortina, Italy. That's where the Kennedy-Eriksson incident is happening. But the Winter Olympics after that will be in Salt Lake City (2034, probably—the IOC's scheduling has gotten complicated).

By then, the Kennedy-Eriksson incident will have faded from most people's memory. For curling, it will have either served as a wake-up call about the importance of maintaining the sport's values, or it will have been a blip that didn't change anything.

Curling's governing bodies have the opportunity to use this incident as a teaching moment. They can emphasize to all elite curlers that the Spirit of Curling matters, that conduct standards matter, and that winning is only meaningful if it's achieved with integrity.

Alternatively, they can treat this as an isolated incident and move on without making any structural changes. That's the safer option in the short term, but it risks allowing the sport's culture to gradually shift in a direction that ultimately harms it.

The more interesting question is how the broader Olympic community views this. Curling is a niche sport in most of the world. But it's also a sport with significant television viewership during the Olympics. If the sport becomes known for conduct issues, that could affect how it's covered and how it's perceived by potential new fans.

Estimated data shows a significant increase in curling prize pools over the past 15 years, reflecting the sport's professionalization.

The Local Curling Perspective: What the Community Thinks

I mentioned earlier that I curl in a Thursday night beer league. That's representative of the grassroots curling community that keeps the sport alive between Olympics.

Within that community, the Kennedy-Eriksson incident has generated a lot of discussion. But the discussion has been surprisingly balanced. Most curlers acknowledge that Kennedy probably shouldn't have responded the way he did. But they also acknowledge that competitive situations can get heated, and they're not convinced that this incident means curling is fundamentally broken.

What's notable is that the curling community is more interested in talking about what the incident means for curling's future than in debating the specific rules that were violated. Club curlers understand the spirit of the sport. They play it every week. And they're concerned about what happens if that spirit erodes.

One thing that's become clear from conversations within the curling community is that incidents like the Kennedy-Eriksson altercation are genuinely rare at all levels of competitive curling. You have competitive matches. You have moments where emotions run high. But you don't typically have athletes telling each other to fuck off.

That rarity is what makes this incident significant. It suggests that something unusual happened, not that Olympic-level curling is normally like this. The sport's culture is still strong enough to make this incident stand out as exceptional.

But the question remains: for how long will that culture be strong enough?

Why the Technical Rule Debate Misses the Point

Let's circle back to the thing that consumed the internet for 48 hours: did Kennedy violate the double-touch rule?

Technically, the video evidence suggests that he probably did. His hand appears to come down on the stone after the nose crossed the hog line. It was a light touch, barely perceptible, but a touch nonetheless.

However, this technical question is almost entirely unimportant to the actual issue that matters. Here's why:

First, the impact on the game was negligible. The stone was already traveling where it needed to go. Kennedy's light tap didn't significantly change its trajectory. From a competitive fairness standpoint, this violation gave Canada no meaningful advantage.

Second, video evidence suggests that other teams have committed similar violations. If you're going to call Kennedy out for a light double-touch, you need consistent standards applied equally to all teams. The fact that Swedish curlers appear to have done similar things undermines the argument that Kennedy was uniquely violating the rules.

Third, and most importantly, whether Kennedy technically violated that specific rule is completely beside the point. The actual problem was how both teams conducted themselves during the match. That's a Spirit of Curling issue, not a technical rule issue.

The internet's obsession with analyzing the double-touch in slow-motion was understandable—it's easier to debate a technical rule than to debate abstract concepts like "spirit" and "conduct." But it missed the real story.

The real story wasn't "did Kennedy touch the stone." The real story was "two elite curlers, including one serving as vice-skip, engaged in unprofessional conduct that violated the fundamental values their sport is built on."

That's a much less satisfying story for social media, which is probably why it didn't get as much traction.

The Curling Community's Worst Fear

If you talk to serious curlers about their biggest worry for the sport's future, it's not about rules or technique. It's about culture.

Curlers are worried that as the sport becomes more professionalized, more televised, and more integrated into mainstream sports culture, it will lose the value system that makes it special. They're worried that young curlers coming up through the sport will look at elite competitors and think that winning is more important than integrity.

They're worried that the Kennedy-Eriksson incident isn't an anomaly—it's a preview of what curling becomes if the sport doesn't actively defend its culture.

These concerns are legitimate. Sports culture can shift relatively quickly, especially when there are financial incentives involved. A few more incidents like this one, and suddenly it becomes normal. Suddenly the norms change.

The question is whether curling's governing bodies, and the elite athletes who are the sport's ambassadors, will work to prevent that shift.

Moving Forward: What Needs to Happen

For curling to emerge from the Kennedy-Eriksson incident stronger rather than weaker, a few things need to happen.

First, the curling community needs to acknowledge clearly and unambiguously that both teams violated the spirit of the sport. Not as a way of blaming individuals, but as a way of reasserting what the sport's values are.

Second, there needs to be an explicit conversation about what professionalization means for curling's culture. The sport can be professional and maintain its values. But it requires intentional effort. You can't just assume that the culture will perpetuate itself.

Third, there need to be consistent standards for conduct at all levels of elite competition. If unsportsmanlike behavior is unacceptable, then it needs to be unacceptable regardless of the context.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, curling's ambassadors—the elite athletes who represent the sport—need to understand that they have a responsibility to defend the culture, not just win competitions. Kennedy is talented enough to remain a respected figure in curling even after this incident, but only if he demonstrates that he understands what went wrong and is committed to doing better.

None of this requires changing rules. It requires reaffirming values.

The Unique Position of Olympic Curling

One final thought: Olympic curling exists in a unique space in the sports world.

It's a sport that most people only encounter during the Olympics. For two weeks every four years, people who've never watched curling before suddenly develop strong opinions about it. They watch matches, they learn rules, they get invested.

Then the Olympics end, and they forget about curling until the next games. Meanwhile, the curling community continues, the players continue, the culture continues.

This means that Olympic curling has an outsized cultural impact. The Kennedy-Eriksson incident will be remembered as representative of Olympic curling, even though it's an isolated incident at the club and regional levels.

That's both a burden and an opportunity. It's a burden because curling has to be on its best behavior at the Olympics, knowing that what happens there will shape how people perceive the entire sport. It's an opportunity because the Olympics give curling a platform to showcase what makes it special.

The Kennedy-Eriksson incident represented a failure to take advantage of that opportunity. Instead of showcasing curling's values, it showcased conflict and profanity.

The curling community can't change what happened. But they can shape what happens next. And that's where the real story is.

TL; DR

• The Kennedy-Eriksson Incident: During an Olympic curling match, Canadian vice-skip Marc Kennedy engaged in a profanity-filled altercation with Swedish curler Oskar Eriksson over a disputed rule violation. The incident went viral, with millions of people suddenly debating curling rules they'd never previously considered.

• The Wrong Debate: The internet focused on whether Kennedy violated the double-touch rule (touching the stone after it crossed the hog line). While video evidence suggests he probably did, this violation had no meaningful impact on the match and other teams appear to have committed similar infractions.

• The Real Problem: Both teams violated the Spirit of Curling, the foundational principle that players should maintain integrity and dignity regardless of competitive pressure. This matters far more than the technical rule debate.

• Why It's Critical: Kennedy and Eriksson held the roles of vice-skips, the players most responsible for maintaining fair play and sport integrity. Their conduct directly undermined the values the sport is built on.

• Cultural Threat: As curling professionalizes with larger prize pools and sponsorships, the incentive structure shifts away from the amateur values of honor and respect that define the sport. This incident illustrates how that shift could accelerate.

• The Path Forward: Curling's governing bodies need to explicitly reaffirm that the Spirit of Curling is non-negotiable and apply consistent conduct standards at the elite level to preserve what makes the sport unique.

FAQ

What exactly did Marc Kennedy do that sparked the controversy?

During a Canada-Sweden Olympic match, Kennedy, Canada's vice-skip, engaged in a heated verbal altercation with Sweden's Oskar Eriksson after a rules dispute. Kennedy told Eriksson to "fuck off" (twice) and declared he "didn't give a shit" about the disputed rule. The exchange was captured on video, went viral on social media, and generated massive discussion about whether Kennedy had violated the double-touch rule.

What is the double-touch rule in curling, and did Kennedy actually violate it?

The double-touch rule prohibits a curler from touching the stone after releasing it, specifically after the nose of the stone crosses the hog line (a line about 30 feet from the release point). Video evidence suggests Kennedy may have lightly tapped the back of the stone after it crossed the hog line, which would technically be a violation. However, the tap appeared extremely minor and had virtually no impact on the stone's trajectory or the match outcome.

Why does the internet's focus on the technical rule miss the actual problem?

The technical rule debate misses the core issue because even if Kennedy violated the double-touch rule, the violation was so minor it had negligible impact on the game. Additionally, video evidence suggests other teams, including Sweden, may have committed similar infractions. The real problem was conduct and respect, not technical compliance. Both teams violated the "Spirit of Curling," which is curling's foundational value stating that players should prioritize integrity over winning.

What is the Spirit of Curling, and why does it matter?

The Spirit of Curling is curling's fundamental principle, established in official rulebooks, stating that "a true curler never attempts to distract opponents, nor to prevent them from playing their best, and would prefer to lose rather than to win unfairly." It reflects curling's 500-year history as a sport built on personal honor and respect between competitors. The principle matters because it's what distinguishes curling from other sports where athletes routinely engage in trash talk and aggressive conduct.

Why is it particularly damaging that Kennedy and Eriksson were both vice-skips when this happened?

In curling, the vice-skip (third thrower) is responsible for administering the game, managing disputes, agreeing on scores, and maintaining fair play. The vice-skip's role carries specific responsibility for upholding the sport's integrity. When the two players most responsible for maintaining fairness engage in profanity-filled conflict over a rules dispute, it undermines the entire foundation of trust that curling is built on. It suggests that even the sport's designated guardians of conduct may not uphold these values.

How does this incident reflect broader changes happening in curling as a sport?

Curling has historically been an amateur or semi-amateur sport where people played for love of the game. As the sport has professionalized over the past 10-15 years, prize pools have increased, sponsorships have expanded, and elite athletes can now make substantial incomes from curling. This professionalization changes incentive structures. When significant money is at stake and rankings matter competitively, athletes face greater psychological pressure and temptation to prioritize winning over the sport's traditional values of dignity and respect.

What do club-level curlers think about this incident?

The grassroots curling community, which keeps the sport alive between Olympics, has responded with measured concern rather than outrage. Most acknowledge Kennedy shouldn't have responded as he did, but they also note that incidents like this are genuinely rare at all levels of competitive curling. The real concern within the curling community is whether incidents like this signal that the sport's cultural values are eroding as the sport becomes more professionalized and integrated into mainstream sports culture.

Could this incident damage curling's reputation and Olympic status?

Potentially, yes. Curling gets most of its mainstream attention during the Olympic Games. The Kennedy-Eriksson incident was the story most people encountered about Olympic curling. Instead of showcasing the skill, strategy, and respect that define the sport, it showcased conflict and poor conduct. If similar incidents become more common, it could affect how curling is perceived and covered, potentially damaging the sport's standing as a valued Olympic discipline.

What needs to happen for curling to move past this incident?

The curling community needs to explicitly acknowledge that both teams violated the Spirit of Curling and reaffirm that the sport's core values are non-negotiable. Governing bodies need to implement consistent conduct standards at elite levels. Elite athletes need to understand they're ambassadors for the sport's culture, not just individual competitors. The sport can maintain professionalization while defending its values, but it requires intentional effort and leadership from organizations and prominent athletes.

Is the Kennedy-Eriksson incident unique, or does it represent broader problems in Olympic curling?

The incident appears to be relatively isolated and exceptional rather than representative of typical Olympic-level curling. Similar altercations are genuinely rare at all competitive levels of the sport. However, it serves as a warning about what could happen if curling doesn't actively defend its cultural values as the sport becomes more professionalized. The incident is best viewed as a cautionary moment rather than evidence of systemic problems.

Key Takeaways

• The internet's obsession with the double-touch technical rule missed the actual violation: both teams broke curling's Spirit of Curling principle that prioritizes integrity over winning
• Kennedy's light tap on the stone had negligible impact on gameplay, and video evidence suggests other teams committed similar infractions, making selective outrage inconsistent
• Kennedy and Eriksson served as vice-skips, the roles most responsible for maintaining fair play and sport integrity, making their conduct especially damaging to curling's culture
• As curling professionalizes with larger prize pools and sponsorships, financial incentives increasingly conflict with the amateur values of honor and respect that define the sport
• The curling community views this as a warning sign about potential cultural erosion, not evidence of systemic problems, but addressing the incident now is critical for the sport's future

Related Articles

• Ilia Malinin's Quadruple Axel: The Physics and History Behind Figure Skating's Greatest Innovation [2025]
• Olympic Bobsledding Technology: The Gear Behind Gold [2026]
• Heated Rivalry Hockey Effect: LGBTQ+ Inclusion & The 2026 Olympics [2025]
• Jessie Diggins' Winter Olympics 2026 Starter Pack [2025]
• How to Watch Short-Track Speed Skating at Winter Olympics 2026 [Free Streams]
• Quadruple Axel Physics: How Ilia Malinin Defies Gravity [2025]