At 04:20 PM 7/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>While reviewing the November Sweepstakes CW results I noticed something
>about the scoring that seems wrong. In the multi-op category, it
>looks like only the top 12 "High Claimed Scores" were cross-checked
>and had "reductions" taken. I believe that this practice could invalidate
>the results (at least for some division leaders). For example, the
>Hudson Division had three close multi-op scores where only one station
>(NA2N+KY2J) received a score reduction. The other two stations AA2FB and
>K2TW, were apprently not cross-checked. (Yes, this did alter the
>standings).
I don't know how much time is taken to cross-check each log entry to the
ARRL, but apparently it takes too much time to do each and every log. There
may always be the situation where one entrant will have a score reduction
that moves him below someone whose log wasn't checked. However, it doesn't
seem fair to cut off the checking in any category when a division, or even
a section award is in question.
I would suggest to the ARRL Contest depeartment that they make it a policy
to extend their log checking in some of these cases. The winner of a
category in any division or section should have their log checked IF any
other claimed score in their category/division/section is reduced to finish
below the score of the entry with the unchecked log. (Did you follow that?)
Fair is fair.
73, Richard
K5NA@BGA.COM
http://www.realtime.net/~k5na
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|