If the contest rules state that you must abide by the radio laws of your
country and you don't, does it matter which laws you broke?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:46 PM, "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> While we dance around the idea of angels, "assistance", and some rules being
> more rules than others...
> What if the op had spent many hours running outside the USA phone band.
> E.g., KP2MM running while transmitting on 7050. Or 14145. Is this different
> than simply operating outside the ops license class? Would that be an
> offense worthy of DQ? Or should those out of band QSOs simply be removed as
> the operator making an innocent mistake?
> Randy, K5ZD
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com [mailto:cq-contest-
>> firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Dick Green WC1M
>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 4:01 PM
>> To: 'W0MU Mike Fatchett'; email@example.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
>> I think it's somewhat silly and a bit of a stretch to call the presence of
>> the control operator "assistance". That person isn't doing anything, other
>> than lending the contest operator use of his/her license. That person is
>> also lending the contest operator use of his/her station, QTH, food,
>> bathroom, etc. Why is that different? In no case is the control operator
>> actually doing anything that affects the competition. He/she is not
>> operating, providing spots, fixing broken equipment, etc. (I'm sure the
>> prohibition against that last item has been violated countless times.)
>> Oh, you say operating in the Extra Class sub-band is a competitive
>> advantage? Yeah, so is a 4-stack on 20m. But the latter can be "loaned" to
>> the contest operator, while the former cannot.
>> That said, the "angels dancing on the head of pin" interpretation being
>> used is that the control operator must be physically present by FCC rule.
>> That's true. So, since another body has to be in the room, it's
>> automatically multi-op. While I disagree with that strict interpretation,
>> and think the impact on the competition is the better way to look at this,
>> I believe HQ is within its rights to interpret the rule as it has.
>> However, I do not think the log should be DQed. It should be reclassified
>> as multi-op. The op didn't try to cheat. He made an innocent mistake.
>> The real issue here is the vague wording of the rules. If the action is
>> against the rules, and will result in DQ or reclassification, then the
>> rules should explicitly say so.
>> 73, Dick WC1M
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:40 AM
>>> To: email@example.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
>>> I think Yuri understands. I had a couple of off list emails with him.
>>> He is going to shoot for his Extra so this is not an issue again.
>>> I can understand his pain. He put in the effort and he is probably
>>> not the 1st nor the last that will do this.
>>> If Herb was there the entire contest or the periods where Yuri was
>>> operating outside his class, we will never know this then why not make
>>> it a Multi OP log.
>>> Yuri sometimes the best lessons are the hardest ones.
>>> Get that extra and get back in the contest. Don't let this discourage
>>> Mike W0MU
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list