Canadian curlers are being accused of 'double-touching.' But what's the advantage?

The controversy over whether some Canadian curlers during the Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics have been guilty of "double-touching" the curling stone after its release has also raised a more significant issue.

Does it make any difference?

"No. The double-touching that I've seen has been incidental contact, and that's fingers brushing or hand brushing on a 40-pound piece of granite," said Eugene Hritzuk, a Canadian curler based in Saskatoon who has been involved in competitive curling and coaching for more than 60 years.

"What can fingers brushing against a 40-pound piece of granite do in any event? You need the palm on your hand against that stone to do anything."

The controversy over the alleged double-touching first became an issue when, during a match at the Olympics on Friday, Swedish curler Oskar Eriksson accused Canadian curler Marc Kennedy of breaking the rules by touching the granite of the stone with his finger after he let go of the rock.

The next day, an umpire accused acclaimed Canadian skip Rachel Homan of the same infraction in Canada's match against Switzerland. The umpire stopped play, and the stone was removed from the match.

Both Kennedy and Homan have denied any allegation that they cheated.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, officials said Scottish curler Bobby Lammie had touched a stone after releasing it down the ice.

Hritzuk, who has also been involved in research studies into the mechanics of curling, said the basic premise behind rules in any sport is to prevent someone from getting an unfair advantage.

But he suggested that cheating allegations involving double-touching against Canada are unfounded because brushing the stone, or altering it, after its release would actually cause a disadvantage.

Delivering a