[CQ-Contest] ARRL single op definition

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Herb did do something.  His presence allowed another operator do operate 
where he did.  Without Herb there Yuri operated Illegally and thus is an 
automatic DQ as he violated a different rule.

I have no idea if Herb was anywhere near the op at all or during the 
entire time.

Operators do not have to make a contact, tune the rig etc.

I am amazed that people are trying to legitimize this operation. It is 
wrong in so many ways.

Mike W0MU

W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
Http://www.w0mu.com

On 6/25/2012 1:03 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> Mike, you've gotten right to the heart of the matter by emphasizing the word
> OPERATOR. To me, this highlights the fact that KV4FZ was an operator *in
> name only*. As far as we know. he didn't do any of the actions ARRL uses to
> define Single-Op:
>
> 2.1.Single Operator: One person performs all transmitting, receiving, and
> logging functions as well as equipment and antenna adjustments.
>
> The fact that Herb *could* have done these things is irrelevant. Any op in
> the room *could* have done them, but only Yuri did. That's ARRL's definition
> of Single-Op.
>
> If you take my approach, and ask whether the competition was altered by the
> way the station was operated, then all you could claim is that Yuri was able
> to generate a higher score by operating in the Extra Class sub band. I don't
> think the difference is significant enough to matter, but others might. If
> that's the case, then ARRL rules need to explicitly state that operating
> under the superior privileges of a control operator is not allowed.
>
> Now, should that be only for Single-Op, or all classes? Again, let's stay
> away from the specious argument that the control op counts as an operator.
> Looking at it only from the competitive perspective, lower class licensees
> using the superior privileges of the control operator at a Multi-Op station
> also have an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have. Why don't we restrict
> those ops to using only the privileges of their own license? If it makes a
> competitive difference in Single-Op, it makes the same difference in
> Multi-Op. We're going to have to get rid of unlicensed ops at multis, too,
> because when bodies are needed, that's a scoring advantage, too. Too bad,
> because it will be a setback to recruiting new hams and new contest
> operators.
>
> This is why I think we need to back off Draconian interpretations of the
> rules and let people have fun, as long as it doesn't materially alter the
> playing field.
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:w0mu at w0mu.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:08 AM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL single op definition
>>
>> And if Yuri had operated within the confines or privileges of HIS
>> license we would not be having this discussion.
>>
>> KV4FZ was a control OPERATOR.  Without this Control OPERATOR Yuri would
>> have been operating illegally.  Without him the results may have been
>> far different.  We will never know.
>>
>> Mike W0MU
>>
>> W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
>> Http://www.w0mu.com
>>
>> On 6/25/2012 6:35 AM, kr2q at optimum.net wrote:
>>> Simple...go to the source: the RULES
>>>
>>> 2.1.Single Operator: One person performs all transmitting, receiving,
>> and logging functions as well as equipment and antenna adjustments.
>>> So...did KV4FZ (or any control op) do any transmitting, receiving,
>> logging or equipment/ant adjustments?  If all he did is turn the stuff
>> on at the beginning of the contest, I don't think the ARRL's definition
>> of single op was violated.
>>> YMMV
>>>
>>> de Doug KR2Q
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>