[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

[Yuri]

And I'm not fine with that. They ought to be.

Yuri  VE3DZ

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+ve3dz=rigexpert.net at contesting.com] On Behalf Of rjairam at gmail.com


Contest and DXCC rules are not always in sync, and they don't have to be.

I am fine with that. All part of the game.

73
Ria, N2RJ


On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 20:12, <contesting at w2irt.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Something I read on the CQ site has been gnawing at me since the 160 
> CW contest last weekend. Per the rules, remote RX is allowed in 
> certain Assisted categories for contest QSOs under contest rule III.
>
> III. CATEGORIES:
> The use of one and only one remote receiver located within 100 
> kilometers of the main transmitter site is permitted
>
> While that's all fine and dandy, and I think it's quite a fair rule, 
> it absolutely goes against DXCC Rule 9C, which reads:
> 9.  Station Location and Boundary:
>
> .
> b) All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a 
> specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
>
> My reading of these two rules is pretty clear that remote-receive 
> QSOs, which ARE valid for the contest, cannot qualify as DXCC-valid contacts.
> Enforcement is another matter, of course, but it's an issue that I 
> think needs to be looked into at some point. I'm a big proponent of 
> allowing remote receivers within a reasonable distance of the 
> transmitter location
> (100 miles is fair in my opinion), and quite frankly I wish DXCC would 
> allow remote-RX QSOs to count for awards. But as the current rule is 
> written I don't see how these Qs can count toward any of the ARRL 160m awards.
>
> Is my interpretation wrong?
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> GO FRC!
> Peter, W2IRT
>
>
> www.facebook.com/W2IRT
>