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

[contesting at w2irt.net]

I don't mind the fact that SO(A) contacts made with remote receivers in the prescribed 100 mile range are valid Qs in the contest, nor do I mind that the ARRL prohibits remote-RX QSOs from participating in the DXCC program. Both rules, although contradictory, serve legitimate ends to their respective programs.

But the problem is there will be thousands of perfectly legal QSOs claimed for credit that do not happen to be valid for DXCC, but will be credited without question because they'll match on LoTW or QSLs will be exchanged.

As a Topband lover, 160m DXCC holder, and Honor Roll member I am compelled to speak up about this. I would dearly *love* to operate a remote RX station for chasing DX on Topband. My totals would easily be over 225 if I could (I'm at 193 now), but like a dummy, I insist on playing by both the spirit and letter of the regulations and I choose to disadvantage myself by operating using my local antennas only, and I don't currently have access to a TX/RX 160m site from which to operate and still be within the rules.

The obvious change would be for the ARRL to allow remote-RX operations (within a defined circle from the TX site) to count for DXCC credit, and I will urge the League to consider a rule change to that effect in the future. 

While it would be *nice* if contest rules were in sync between CQ and ARRL events, it's not necessarily required that they have to be. But in this case we're not talking about a purely radiosport issue, but rather a significant departure from the long established rules of the world's most recognized DXing award program. 

To me this is akin to allowing certain rules violations to get pass at WRTC. 

Now I would like to think that the gentlemen and ladies who pride themselves as Topband operators possess integrity enough to not submit such QSOs for credit when they work a new one on 160 but I who am I kidding. I'll certainly do my part. 

Will all of you make the same pledge? 

---------------------------------------------
GO FRC!
Peter, W2IRT

www.facebook.com/W2IRT

-----Original Message-----
From: Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net> 
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 10:56 PM
To: 'Peter Dougherty (W2IRT)' <contesting at w2irt.net>
Cc: 'CQ-Contest Reflector' <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

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
>