VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] General VHF Rules 1.2 and 1.3

To: Jimk8mr@aol.com, VHF Contesting Reflector <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] General VHF Rules 1.2 and 1.3
From: James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:48:20 -0700
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
This isn't a rationale for the one entry rule, but it is a history, and perhaps 
a bit of explanation. It was not quite how I remember it. 

The rule prohibiting more than one entry per individual appears to have been 
first specifically implemented in the initial "General Rules for ARRL Contests 
on bands above 50 MHz", which appeared in the December 1997 QST. I am unaware 
of any special circumstances that prompted this rule, although it would be hard 
to tell just looking at the line scores and the logs submitted. This was 
shortly after the rover rules had changed for the second time though, but I am 
not sure the two are related. There was no parallel provision in the HF general 
rules, published at the same time. That dichotomy continues to this day.

The following information is for the June contest. Prior to issuing the general 
rules for VHF contests in December 1997, it appears the January rules were 
rather general (and hence somewhat ambiguous) and in fact nothing called rules 
for the January VHF Sweepstakes were posted in QST, rather just an announcement 
of the contest. 

>From 1992 to 1996, the rule allowing multiple operations under different calls 
>appeared to be fairly liberal, allowing multiple entries under certain 
>circumstances; stating in part, "one operator may not give out contest QSOs 
>using more than one call from any one location." That seems to indicate to me 
>that multiple operations from different QTHs under different calls by the same 
>op would have been permitted, provided the other rules are followed. Like I 
>said, it is not really possible to tell from my quick scan of the line scores 
>whether or not this actually occurred.

>From 1986, when the QRP Portable category was introduced, to 1992 when the 
>rover category was instituted the equivalent to rules 1.2 and 1.3 read:

"7(C) Fixed, portable, or mobile operation under one call from one 2 degree x 1 
degree grid square only is permitted. A transmitter used to contact one or more 
stations may not be used subsequently under any other call during the contest 
period (with the exception of family stations where more than one call is 
assigned to one location by FCC/DOC); one operator may not give out contest 
QSOs using more than one call sign from any one location. THe intent of this 
rule is to accommodate family members who must share a rig, not to manufacture 
artificial contacts."

This rule would certainly have allowed multiple submissions by a single 
operator as long as they were within different grids, and it is clear from the 
line scores in QST that this occurred in the QRP Portable category, and it is 
even featured in a sidebar. Perhaps it allowed multiple operations at different 
locations under different calls by the same op, as I think the rule was 
primarily in place to prohibit someone from using more than one call from a 
single location. Interestingly, this rule also seems to allow for mobile 
operation within an entire grid, with no staying within a certain radius as is 
required now. 

Single band entries were allowed.

Prior to this, the gird square provision had read section instead of grid 
square and prior to that location instead of section. I didn't look for the 
exact year these changes became effective.

In 1955 the rule read simply:

3) Fixed, portable, or mobile operation under one call, from one location only, 
is permitted.

I am not sure how mobile operation from one location only would really work 
though. :^)=

Like I said, not a rationale, but a history. I did a cursory search of the 
CQ-Contest reflector archives around the time the "General VHF Rules" were 
released to see if there were any events that triggered this change, but I did 
not find any. Lots of people were unhappy about the General VHF Rules calling 
them stealth rules changes and there were some significant changes made and 
apparently it was not given broad distribution before implementation. 

I am sure that there are people around now who took part in making that rule 
then; maybe they can comment? - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM





_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>