The Sweeper as the Sharpshooter
Curling has a problem that few involved in the game are willing to admit, let alone address. Priincipally, we are deluding those who watch our cherished game on television and/or those who pick it up for the first time into believing that the result of each shot thrown is solely a function of the shooter's actions. We perpetuate this lie by the manner in which we record the game's statistics - marking only the shooter for a score out of a possible four points for every stone they hurl down the frozen sheet. Yet, as any casual observer can plainly tell, there are a myriad of factors that contribute to the final placement of every curling rock.
There are no fewer than eleven separate elements that contribute to any curling shot. While there may indeed be other minor or intangible factors that the readers of this paper will suggest do play a role - suffice it to say that the list presented below, if not exhaustive, represents as great a compilation as necessary to evaluate a curling shot by comparing the derivatives of which it is composed. These eleven sub-elements include:
Consider two common scenarios in curling play. In the first scenario, the second is attempting to draw through a port to hide his stone behind a centre-line guard. Throwing a little wide of the broom (intended target line), with immediately recognizable back eight-foot weight, the sweepers and the skip combine to hold the line and weight so as to tick a chunk of the corner guard in the port combination and direct the shot stone buried behind the centre-line guard, letting it come to rest at the top of the four-foot without promoting into the rings any of the opposition's stones. Though not achieved in the manner anticipated, since the shot did achieve its desired objective, under the traditional scoring methods, it would be awarded a perfect mark.
Now consider a second scenario. It is the vice's first stone for the team playing without the hammer in a wide-open end that has only one opposition stone in play which is found within the rings. Sliding out three inches narrow of the target line, the vice misses the object stone completely despite the sweeping vigourously applied from the moment of release. After the opponent throws to split the rings (placing rocks on either side of the scoring area), our original vice avenges his earlier error by making the peel-weight, across-the-house double-takeout. In so doing, and by leaving his shooting stone ("shooter") in front of the T-line, he virtually negates the possibility of surrendering two points. However, the total cumulative scoring from the two shots under the conventional system would be only four out of eight points - or 50%.
But does any of this make sense?
Of course not! In the first scenario, the shot simply should not have been made. He threw it too heavy and almost certainly too wide of the target area. Left to its own devices, it would have most certainly have slipped harmlessly into the back of the house and probably remained half-exposed. Had that happened, it would have created an excellent opportunity for the opposition. It was only the correct combination of communication, line-calling and sweeping that led to the sensational result.
Similarly, while the vice clearly threw a poor stone on his first attempt, his second shot more than made up for this faux pas. Since his team is now no worse off than before he threw, a 50% rating is much too low. Something closer to 100% would be much more accurate.
Hockey Pools Urban Planning Umpiring Movie Reviews Course Notes Curling Poetry Miscellaneous Contact