Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

In rules for Officiated play

10 (3)(c) If a moving stone is touched, or is caused to be touched, by an external force, all stones are allowed to come to rest and then placed where they would have come to rest if the incident had not occurred. If the teams cannot agree, the stone is redelivered after all displaced stones have been replaced to their original positions. The player will redeliver the same called shot and ice. If agreement on the original positions cannot be reached, the end is replayed.

the rock that hit the barrier is out of play so by coming back into the field of play is an external force. There is no non offending team option, if both teams don't agree then the shot is replayed.

The same rule is in the WCF rulebook.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002

having just seen the highlights now i honestly dont see how anyone could think that yellow was staying in if the red hadnt bounced back and hit it. was going out for sure

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538

I'm looking at Stjerne, with his enthusiasm & attitude and I'm thinking "There's a young Danish Kevin Martin".

I like the kid's enthusiasm.

__________________
Jim

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Twin Snowbanks
Posts: 2068

quote:

---

Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
In rules for Officiated play

10 (3)(c) If a moving stone is touched, or is caused to be touched, by an external force, all stones are allowed to come to rest and then placed where they would have come to rest if the incident had not occurred. If the teams cannot agree, the stone is redelivered after all displaced stones have been replaced to their original positions. The player will redeliver the same called shot and ice. If agreement on the original positions cannot be reached, the end is replayed.

the rock that hit the barrier is out of play so by coming back into the field of play is an external force. There is no non offending team option, if both teams don't agree then the shot is replayed.

The same rule is in the WCF rulebook.

---

__________________
Lots of major youth (<21) events. Nice for Murdoch... and us :-D.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Kingston, ON
Posts: 559

I just wish he would take his whistle and shove it where the sun does not shine.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 6002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beermaker
I just wish he would take his whistle and shove it where the sun does not shine.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 48

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beermaker
I just wish he would take his whistle and shove it where the sun does not shine.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2014
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 202

quote:

---

Originally posted by misty1
having just seen the highlights now i honestly dont see how anyone could think that yellow was staying in if the red hadnt bounced back and hit it. was going out for sure

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by misty1
having just seen the highlights now i honestly dont see how anyone could think that yellow was staying in if the red hadnt bounced back and hit it. was going out for sure

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 82

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manitoba Legend
Nice try by Japan to execute a fether fether double but they end up jamming on the side.

Here's my view.

1. Japan had responsibility for catching 'boarded stone' before it moved back into play.

2. Outcome of jammed stone coming back to give USA stone a bit of extra momentum resulted in a biter for USA and draw for go-ahead 3rd point.

3. Even if Japan extracts boarded stone - result is inconclusive - in my eyes prolly a 65% chance USA stone sticks around anyways. Thus, in outcome 1 - with the boarded stone affecting rock its 100% USA ---- outcome 2 is unknown but film shots indicate 67% chance jammed stone stays!

4. USA has total decision making ability on call - - - - and I think correct decision made!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

quote:

---

Originally posted by dbsdbs


Lots of people agree with you. Unfortunately, lots of people disagree with you on this call. We will never know which group is right. Too bad it happened this way and had such an impact on the game.

---

Last edited by dugless_zone 13 on 04-09-16 at 05:00PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

After watchign in super slo mo, I think that it would likley have stuck. But it seems as though this is how the situation shoudl have transpired on the ice.

SHuster say it sticks, it would be his right. Then Japan skip can agree, or disagree. If disagree, then official should have applied the rule:

"10 (3)(c) If a moving stone is touched, or is caused to be touched, by an external force, all stones are allowed to come to rest and then placed where they would have come to rest if the incident had not occurred. If the teams cannot agree, the stone is redelivered after all displaced stones have been replaced to their original positions. The player will redeliver the same called shot and ice. If agreement on the original positions cannot be reached, the end is replayed."

So one of 2 things happened. Either Japan skip agreed with shuster ultimately, or, no one reazlied that skips disagree and should have rethrown. If the latter, then I blame the official for not stepping in for interpretation. I dont see that Shuster did anything wrong in his saying. Again as I started with, I think it would have stuck, and this is coming from someone who admittidely has been very critical of Shuster for a while, so I feel this is not a biased opinion.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272

It's not so clear to me that a rock bouncing off the barrier is actually an "external force" that should be treated 10(3)(c) or some equivalent.

Traditionally teams are expected to be in control of the results of their own shots. Traditionally an "external force" is a person or object not otherwise involved in the game.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

It's not so clear to me that a rock bouncing off the barrier is actually an "external force" that should be treated 10(3)(c) or some equivalent.

a rock that hits the sideline is immediately out of play, not when it stops moving, and can not be allowed to influence rocks still in play. Once that rock hits the sideline it no longer exists in that field of play. It becomes an outside or "external force"

There is no way the two teams would have agreed with Johns placement of the rock so ultimately the rock should have been re-thrown. Ignorance of the rules does not give a player the right to break them.

Last edited by dugless_zone 13 on 04-09-16 at 05:32PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2005
Location: .
Posts: 1844

Interesting interpretations on what constitutes an External Force. There are rules that govern rocks bouncing off the sideboard, but they only apply to any stationary stones affected, not a moving stone.

It sounds like the rules need some clarification on this situation.

__________________
Guest

Last edited by Guest on 04-09-16 at 05:33PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

It's not really much of an interpretation, pretty cut and dry. A rock that touches the sideline is out of play immediately and a rock that is out of play can not influence the path of a rock that is in play. As soon as that rock came back into the field of play and touched the yellow rock 10(3)(c) came into play.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2005
Location: .
Posts: 1844

quote:

---

Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
It's not really much of an interpretation, pretty cut and dry. A rock that touches the sideline is out of play immediately and a rock that is out of play can not influence the path of a rock that is in play. As soon as that rock came back into the field of play and touched the yellow rock 10(3)(c) came into play.

---

__________________
Guest

Last edited by Guest on 04-09-16 at 06:33PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2002
Location:
Posts: 612

I agree with "Guest" on this. The rock is not an external force any more than a chunk of rubber from your slider or a hair from your jacket falling in front of a rock is. How often do you see someone claiming that either of these 'external forces' caused their shot to veer off and they therefore are permitted a 'do-over'? Never. An external force is pigeon poop dropping from the rafters at the Ottawa arena causing a rock to pick. That's an external force and a do-over would be permitted.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

"I would not consider the rock coming off the boards as such, since one of the teams is responsible for dealing with said rock."

where in the rule book does it say you are supposed to catch rocks? A simple example to illustrate this is to imagine where that rock would have ended up in your curling club, most likely back four foot of the sheet next to you since there are most likely no sideboards. That rock would have continued on in the direction it was traveling, out of play , had it not been redirected back onto the playing surface by an artificial barrier. It is no different than a rock from another sheet entering that playing surface.

Last edited by dugless_zone 13 on 04-09-16 at 07:29PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2002
Location:
Posts: 612

quote:

---

Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
....
where in the rule book does it say you are supposed to catch rocks? ....

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

Wow Legend, The rules are cut and dry yet you disagree so we walk through it. Where in the rulebook does it say that the player was responsible for catching a rock that was out of play? Secondly, where does it say that a rock that is out of play can be allowed to influence a rock in play? Following that line of questions, where does it say that a player can make up a rule different from the rule in the book to satisfy his own needs. Shuster's ignorance of the rules ( also the officials ignorance) is no excuse for what happened.

there is no fault in Japan's actions.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2005
Location: .
Posts: 1844

This is the applicable rule and it was applied correctly ...

R8 b(ii) If a moving stone is touched, or is caused to be touched, by an opposition team, or by its equipment, all stones are allowed to come to rest, after which the non-offending team places the stones where it reasonably considers the stones would have come to rest, had the moving stone not been touched.

__________________
Guest

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guest
This is the applicable rule and it was applied correctly ...

R8 b(ii) If a moving stone is touched, or is caused to be touched, by an opposition team, or by its equipment, all stones are allowed to come to rest, after which the non-offending team places the stones where it reasonably considers the stones would have come to rest, had the moving stone not been touched.

---

Last edited by dugless_zone 13 on 04-09-16 at 09:22PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990

I just find it interesting that there is such a lack of knowledge concerning the rules of the game by players. The general rule of thumb I have seen when situations like this occur is people refering to the rulebook of "my old skip told me his old skip told him". I would venture to say about 90% of curlers have not read the current rulebook, but rather rely on word of mouth passed along by others who havent read a rulebook in years.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2015
Location:
Posts: 960

It's all the Drama of the quirky curling moments that we find endless quibbling

If the on-ice umpire supposedly was wrong in stating that JPN was
responsible for the red rock that bounced off the barrier ..
Perhaps JPN should protest the game.. but they will not...
They have the complaint... yet said only "No Comment".. and moved on..

Let's see who walks away with the Bronze medal after all this hub bub..

will be interesting if Shuster changes his claims
after he sees the slow motion video..of the yellow rock going out of play...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged