ARRL taking wrong consequences

ARRL taking wrong decision on URE DA0HQ conflictYesterday ARRL oficially published their answer on the Spanish Request to disqualify the German Headquater station DA0HQ in IARU Contest 2009. Read in this blogpost why I fundamentally disagree with ARRLs consequences!

I call several Spanish and German HQ Team members my personal friends. Over the last decade, I have operated almost all of my contests in either a German or a Spanish Contest team. Personally I deeply regret that this issue was escalated up into the international arena. I believe that this conflict could have been solved in bi-lateral talks.

In my professional career it is my job to negotiate, mediate and solve Spanish-German inter-cultural conflicts. Out of  experience I can tell that the majority of all conflicts are based on (wrong) assumptions. Instead of accusing the other party, it is much more fruitful trying to understand the other party’s arguments. However this is not always easy.

But the main reason of this blogpost is the announcement made by ARRL today. The most astonishing news is that ARRL has declared not to check HQ logs anymore and take them out of the contest results.

As a contester by heart I was shocked by this announcement. It is pretty much a slap in the face of all Headquarter stations currently preparing again for the upcoming IARU Championship (just 4 more weeks to go!). Everybody who ever operated in this contest as a Headquarter knows that it does involve a huge amount of personal, management and technical effort to organize such a participation.

Can you imagine yourself the disappointment of the HQs which are already preparing themselves since several months? First reactions have shown that major HQ stations either will not participate (LY0HQ, YL0HQ, ES0HQ &  SN0HQ) or seriously reconsider their participation (TM0HQ) in the upcoming IARU HF Championship.

I completely disagree with ARRL’s argument that “comparing the results of different national HQ teams, especially across continental boundaries, is comparing apples and oranges”. If this would be true, we will consequentially have to redefine almost ALL categories. Being sarcastic one could argue that it’s just not fair to compare a European result with one of those big contest stations in Zone 33 or Zone 8 / 9 . However in almost all (also ARRL sponsored contests) exist worldwide top-ranking lists.

What is wrong when a national association spends effort in the animation of it’s members to participate in a contest?  At the end, everyone benefits. Even if some stations exclusively worked DA0HQ, the vast majority also provided points to other contest participants.

A contest is a sports event. It’s an event where participants are competing against each other. Competition is in the nature of a contest. What is the use of a contest when no more results are published? This is so ridiculous!

Maybe ARRL will soon also recommend to FIFA the following rule changes:

1. All World-cup matches shall be titled as “Friendship-matches”

2. There will be no winner (and thereby also no looser)

3. But all nations will receive a certificate of participation

How boring would soccer be with these rules…

Resume

ARRL has proven it’s inability to organize and manage porperly such an important event as the IARU HF Championship. The last month have shown us that

  1. ARRL is not able to calculate the results properly
  2. ARRL is not able to act as a proper referee and nominate who has won the contest
  3. ARRL has acted irresponsible by changing fundamental contest rules just four weeks prior to the contest
  4. ARRL discourages the participation in the contest by basically deleting the Headquarter category
  5. ARRL implicitly endangers the conduction of WRTC which highly rely on a high participation

I request the IARU committee and the whole contest community to reconsider if ARRL is still capable to properly organize and mange this event. So far I heard that other national organisations are ready to take over this job.

So how? What do you think? Share your thoughts and opinion on this important topic with us!

About Tobias (DH1TW)

Self-confessed Starbucks addict. Loves to travel around the globe. Enjoys the technical preparations of Amateur-Radio contests as much as the contests themselves. Engineer by nature. Entrepreneur. For more, follow him @DH1TW

Comments

  1. It seems that crap is creeping into contesting. We see cliques running contests with disregard to opinions especially of top contesters. We see censoring of reflector postings by self appointed gestapo. We see irrational decisions classifying skimmer as a person – assistant. Now disregarding HQ stations from competition after elevating them onto multiplier pedestal? Having zero points for own country in CQ WW, 3 QSO “penalties” from log checker, policemen watching you operate….?

    What’s next? Canadian scoring system: “And why we are on the fast track to suckdom. Check out this story Glenn (Beck) had on radio today about a Canadian youth soccer league and the new rule they introduced. Any team that wins a game by more than 5 points will lose by default.”?

    Participate, make up your own category and print yourself certificate for whatever.

    It is sad to see rationality and logic fading away from our belowed contesting.

    73 and GL, Yuri

  2. Willy UA9BA says:

    Right on Tobias! Unheard of had just happened to contesting! ARRL reveals its total incompetence, no motivation, inability to manage this event. Now I think I know the answer to the question I always had on my mind “why are the americans/canadians so disinterested in IARU HF World Radiosport Champioship?”

    Very bad desicion! Not thought of at all! The Manager that’s behind it should be fired and never be involved in such business in future. The ARRL should reconsider its decision! HQ ccompetion is a VERY important part of this particular event here in Europe.

    73′s & GL, Willy UA9BA

  3. Braco OE1EMS says:

    Hi Tobi,

    great article!

    ARRL show us one more time they dont care about us at all……shame on ARRL!

    As far i know

    The IARU Administrative Council asked the ARRL to administer the IARU HF World Championship on its behalf. The Administrative Council is aware of the rules changes

    If i am not wrong they are not even in the charge to bring such desisions….but anyway….

    73
    Braco
    OE1EMS/E77DX

  4. Hi Tobi

    very good article, I think the ARRL should reconsider its determination and change the Rules of the game, I think it is inviable mixing stations, OC, AF, NA, SA and EU in the same classification, that it is what has generated all this For my part separate classifications HQ zones or continents, and would be easier.

    I think the ARRL is not right with this decision, I personally think that this decision is going to hurt because many countries will think they are not very serious about making a important decision.

    A hug and hopefully see you soon. 73 + DX

    Jesus – EC1KR
    http://www.ec1kr.com

  5. Zoli HA1AG says:

    Hi Tobi,

    I find this an interesting article knowing your position, but I disagree in all aspects. Especially I find nr 5 to be out of proportion.

    I think it is a good decision, HQs in their current form should go because none of the essential elements of a true competition remained there.

    ARRL had a very sensitive position there as a co-member as an adjucator and they made the best of it.

    cheers,

    zoli ha1ag

  6. Michael, DL6MHW says:

    Hi Toby,

    the ARRL did a good job managing the IARU event for many years. Despite the often discussed pointing system 5-3-1 we had the situation that the top europeans have similar scores like the a priori winner AO8HQ. So there is a good base for the competition.

    In 2009 ARRL made a little but sereous programming error followed by some problems in communication.

    Software is never free of errors – remember Ariane5 or the problem of credit cards in the beginning of 2010. Finding this errors is quit difficult for the programmer of the software. I calculated a WAEDC record list some year ago that contains 2 percent wrong entries. You always need a review from a manager or user perspective.

    In my opinion ARRL should manage the IARC Championship in the common way including the HQ listing. Before publishing the final score there should be a review by some top scoring participants to find significant problems in software. This needs time, because every station will discuss every penalyty. But it can avoid situations just seen in IARU 2009.

    I understand the reaction of the ARRL. But like in a football match it is not always easy to be the referee – especially when the emotions are high. And to manage this emotions is quite unpleasent for the ARRL.

    The HQ-Championship is a real contest – and should be in the future. The ARRL did a good job for many year. TNX for that!

    73 de Michael, DL6MHW

  7. Adam says:

    Yuri is right.
    there is more and more unfair behaviour in contesting.
    unfortunately a lot of such behaviour came up with HQ competition.
    dozens of suspect, fake QSOs, QSOs that simply was not done put up some HQ stations up to the top.
    Despite their superb tactics, equpement and ops they still need to cheat to win. altered logs, fake locations, unlimited power – this is not the way for ham radio for sure.
    that is sick and ARRL went right to quit that silly game.

    73 es cu in the (normal) contest
    adam

  8. OC Toby, I have great sympathy for your shared EA/DL role. You may now better understand feelings of millions of YU during the breakup of our country.

    CCCP Radio Sport was a great contest and I am glad IARU/ARRL took it over. However, DL overzelaous cheerleading shows the worst outcome of EU nationalism which is foreign to Americans.

    How about DARC/SRR/URE taking over scoring of IARU R1 HQ scores? Doesn’t work for Field Day!

    73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU

  9. P.S. I disagree on all of your 5 statements about ARRL! I am paying membership for years :-)

  10. ik4vet says:

    Great post Toby.

    If arrl wants to change someting about HQ competition this is wrong way.

    Andrea
    IK4VET

  11. Andrew says:

    Agreed, Tobi. Nicely done. The ARRL has become like so many industry associations; all political correctness, and an inability to act.

    73,

    Andrew
    W7VJ

  12. Gregory says:

    I can not agree with Tobias in following cases :

    1. ARRL is not able to calculate the results properly

    how results can be count “properly” when it was scored against ARRL general cotest rules?

    2. ARRL is not able to act as a proper referee and nominate who has won the contest

    see above – how can one be a winner if he wasn’t play fair?

    3. ARRL has acted irresponsible by changing fundamental contest rules just four weeks prior to the contest

    well, you have to admit that facing such a ridiculous fight URE vs DARC ARRL should act quickly and in straight way to cut things out. i would call it responsible behaviour

    4. ARRL discourages the participation in the contest by basically deleting the Headquarter category

    yes but it goes to HQ category only. speaking for myself i’d love to take a part in comming IARU contest as SO.

    5. ARRL implicitly endangers the conduction of WRTC which highly rely on a high participation

    WRTC is clear contest and got nothing to do with polluting bands with dozens of HQ stations signals.

    lets make contesting more “amateur radio like” rather than stuck in cheating mud for years like in HQ competition

    Greg

  13. John W2GD/P40W says:

    Since HQ stations continue to be ‘multipliers’ under the rules, their participation remains exceptionally important to the overall enjoyment by contest participants worldwide, and the rivalry between national societies was an incentive for them to field the best possible HQ operations possible. I’m saddened to learn some of the most active HQ groups have decided to throw in the towel and not compete as the result of the ARRL’s internal Awards Committee decision. I can understand their disappointment – the ARRL’s ruling essentially says HQ stn. participation is not considered all that important to the success of the event. In reality, everyone’s participation is important, but now HQ stations have been effectively cut off at the knees and are not longer part of the competition… where is the incentive?. So why bother going through all the effort?

    The ARRL did a big “duck and weave” in their response. This was a ‘political’ hot potato for them, and they took the path which they had hoped would lead to the minimum amount of fallout. Unfortunately their spineless decision, which effectively writes off last year’s effort for the top HQ groups, exhibited a striking lack of leadership and support for contesting in general. Sometimes its necessary to bite the bullet and do whats right, take a stand. The ARRL decided to deflect confrontation, and made a ruling that exhibited their unwillingness to rule authoritatively.

    The IARU has become one of the most popular international contest events of the year – its format is unique in many ways (a different multiplier scheme, 24 hour format, CW, SSB or combined competition catagories, etc.) which has added to its attraction for many operators, particularly those in the Northern Hemisphere operating under summer conditions. HQ station contracts often represent a significantly high percentage of multipliers worked by casual contestants. Its intuitively counter-productive to make a rule change which discourages HQ station participation, given how important contacts made with them are to everyone’s score.

    The IARU rules for HQ stations had a flaw. Contacts made within one’s own country count like any other contact in their zone. For countries with a large and organized ham population (like Germany, Russia, and the USA) the ‘potential’ for abuse was there……just a small effort on the part of the contest communities in these and other countries could produce spectacularly exaggerated results which benefited there home HQ station score. I’m sure many of you have over the years looked at the band breakdowns, and its obvious there were abuses by some countries – 1300 or more 160 meter phone contacts made by an HQ station in July simply doesn’t happen by accident! Its the equivalent of stuffing the ballot box, and I’m sure the majority of the calls that appear in those 160 logs don’t find their way into many others.

    Eliminating national ‘cheerleading’ and bring the HQ stations back into the competition, can be accomplshed easily. Assign ZERO points to in-country QSOs made by HQ stations. The potential for abuse is eliminated.

    73,

    John Crovelli W2GD/P40W
    w2gd@hotmail.com

  14. Wolfgang Daub says:

    The ARRL decided politically and A08HQ here clearly disadvantages. Due to the differences in the log of DA0HQ DA0HQ would have had to be disqualifiziert. Over the decision of the ARRL I am very much disappointed.

  15. ex-VR2BG/p says:

    Since NN1N mentioned the rules, let’s look at them:

    “3.5.A transmitter used to contact one or more stations may not be subsequently used under any other call during the contest period, except for family stations where more than one call has been issued, and then only if the second call sign is used by a different operator. (The intent of this rule is to accommodate family members who must share a rig and to prohibit manufactured or artificial contacts.)”

    Read the bit in parenthesis carefully.

    When you submit an entry claiming credit for Qs that were “fed” to you (the term I learned in late-70s W7, is like being spoon-fed Qs as one would feed a toddler), aren’t those the sort of Qs the rule says it intends to prohibit?

    “7.1. If the claimed score of a participant is reduced by 2% or more, the entry may be disqualified. Score reduction does not include correction of arithmetic errors.”

    When you submit an entry claiming credit for “manufactured or artificial” Qs & anything else not allowed that are 2% or more of your score, seems the rules say you may be disqualified.

    How ARRL has spun this one is a real disappointment, made even worse by what they did to treat one of the symptoms instead of any of the diseases.

  16. Braco OE1EMS says:

    Zoli,

    if dont like HQ and dont like to operate in the IARU HF Contest just let it be…..there are enough other contest and all off them are without HQ stations!

    John,

    QSO is QSO even with own coutry and its take time to be made!
    I dont see a realy problem with 1 point for own coutry…..if you cancel points for own coutry you will kill activity in this contest (just imageine you operate from Germany, Russia or even France, Poland or GB)!
    Many operators getting on the air in this contest just to work HQ station but most of the then works also few others and this is great!

    Better way will be to encouraged “local” HAMs to made more QSOs also with other stations and to try to minimize Nr of Uniques.

    Next step have to be rule change…. it cann´t be that EA8,CN,CT3 getting same points like ZL working EU´s!
    I would like to make table (crosstable) with all 90 ITU Zones and calculations of points from one to each zone.

    For example: QSO from Zone 28 (OE)
    to Zone 28 own country 1 Point
    (If own country is larger as 1 ITU Zone,add additional points according cross table)
    to Zone 28 other coutry 2 Points
    to Zone 27 (F,G,…) 3 Points
    to Zone 37 (EA,CN. 7X,…) 4 Points
    to Zone 36 (EA8, CT3) 5 Points
    to Zone 8 (K) is 8 Points
    to Zone 7 (K) is 9 Points
    to Zone 6 (K) is 10 Points
    to Zone 77 (KH6) 11 Points
    etc.

    This rule will probably be most fair for everyone, larger distance equals more points!
    It´s also fair to get some points with contacts with your own country, you can imagine that contest
    participant from coutries with large ham population can be disadvantaged in compare to other stations
    if they get zero points for contacts with it’s own country.
    Exchange will stay the same as before (ITU Zones) and contest will remain very atractive and quick!
    There will be no disatvantage for any participant in points, also not for participants from countries
    with large ham population (like DLs or UA´s or Ws). Of course geographical advatage of some participants
    will remain. I think this is a much better way of calculating QSO qso points then usage of QTH locator which will slow down the contest and ultimately reduce activity.

    And 0 Points for Uniue QSOs!

    73s
    Braco OE1EMS/E77DX

  17. Ben DL8UI says:

    Congratulation to Finish and Spanish team of AO8HQ from URE.
    Now this HQ competition is stopped.
    Having only 16.000 Qso’s less then DA0HQ and did not win?

    Hey…our hobby is amateur radio and we all want the same…
    Have fun and enjoy our hobby.
    Please remember this.

    73′s

    Ben DL8UI

  18. The following text has been sent to the “IARU R1 HF contest rules” closed group. Its main objective is to discuss possible changes of the rules of the IARU HF World Championship.

    Competition between entrants is what contesting is all about and makes this sport the fun activity we all love !
    It would appear that the ARRL doesn’t live on the same planet as us contesters, and doesn’t subscribe to the same ideas. Read more.

    2009 :

    Once a contest is over, the mission of a contest committee is to check that the logs of the entrants are compliant with the rules and ethics of the contest, score them, and adjudicate. The ARRL has failed twice in 2009 : They first published incorrect results and afterwards simply claim they will not decide who finished first or second, despite detailed analysis provided by an entrant… (as it seems the contest committee members are unable to do such themselves !).

    As they don’t adjudicate who finished first or second, it implies that the remaining HQ entrants’ results and rankings are also meaningless ! That suggests that over 1000 ops in more than 60 teams took part in a contest (with countless hours of preparation, etc.) for nothing ! Unbelievable !

    2010 :

    This time around it got even better. One month prior to the 2010 event, the ARRL has decided to change the rules… and not check the logs of the HQ entrants, and finally to not publish any final score (or ranking) for them ! We (TMØHQ) have been preparing for this event since February 2010. We already have more than 70 ops involved, have spent countless hours on the preparation of stations, website, computing, drove hundreds of km for… nothing. AGAIN ! And we’re sure we’re not alone in this position. The ARRL is making fools of us and all the HQ teams. Such an approach displays a total lack of respect for all involved in this international event. It must also be pointed out that, according to its text, the decision to implement these last minute rule modifications was taken unilaterally by the ARRL, despite the presence of a recognized workgroup (IARU R1 HF Contest Rules mailing list). What arrogance !

    So what’s next ?

    This unfortunate decision from ARRL demonstrates that the contesting community and the HQ teams obviously values much more the competition than the organizers themselves. We regret to see such a decision even more by contesters.

    It’s clear the ARRL will not reconsider its position on this topic. The question is now : Do we really need the ARRL to adjudicate the HQ logs ? We don’t think so. We believe this is an opportunity for us (HQ competitors) to do a better job ! How about creating a multinational group to seriously check these logs, and publish results on the web ? We could even tune the scoring and checking methods, and adopt better rules (on unique QSOs for example) to ensure fairer adjudication and thus avoid abuse in future.

    In light of all the above, be advised that TMØHQ is reconsidering whether to participate or not in the coming IARU HF Contest. Further preparations have been brought to a halt and currently if nothing changes, we will not waste our time for a checklog.

    We all are VERY disappointed by this situation, brought about by a bunch of incompetent persons.

    73
    F2DX and F6FVY – TMØHQ 2010 Team leaders

  19. Braco OE1EMS says:

    Graham,

    as far i know those rules are for ARRL contest!
    We are talking about IARU Contest!!!!!

    An other point if find old rules from 2008 or 2009 somewhere on the web you will
    see there ist no NR 14

    14. Additional Rules:

    14.1. For situations not covered in these rules refer to the ARRL General Rules for All Contests and the ARRL Rules for Contests on Bands below 30 MHz.

    probably ARRL changed this without any consultation with IARU ( i was going trough the IARU papers in the past and didn´t find anything about rule change !!!!)

    The IARU Administrative Council asked the ARRL to administer the IARU HF World Championship on its behalf. The Administrative Council is aware of the rules changes.

    Another view……even those rules are valid ( but i do have other opinion) if i am allowed to use several callsigns and i do not submit my log to IARU or ARRL but giving the points to few station in the contest with my several callsigns i there is nothing wrong!
    Other station participating in contest can´t do anything against this!!

    Don’t get me wrong……personaly i will support better rules (what ever it is) but you can´t change rules after the contest and DQ somebody because he is not playing by the new rules!!!

    73
    Braco

  20. Adam says:

    What is really sad to me is to see coments like TM0HQ or OE1EMS.

    Why can’t you get some serious reflection about how this contest degenerates more and more recently?
    What this all got do do with ham radio? what is so fun to write couple of SK’s calls (2005 runners up) down into your log?
    What kind of competition is this?

    I think couple of guy should reconsider their option instead of forcing it’s swampy game without ARRL asisstance. Think what to do to put this competition back on track rather than stuck in undo qso’s contest.

    I will not work any HQs until own country will count 0pts and all logs will be public.

    period.

  21. Braco OE1EMS says:

    Adam,

    only who is want to distroy competion is ARRL!

    We do not have problems with the rules at all, but this act of ARRL is absolutely unacceptable!

    “ARRL is not able to calculate the results properly
    ARRL is not able to act as a proper referee and nominate who has won the contest
    ARRL has acted irresponsible by changing fundamental contest rules just four weeks prior to the contest
    ARRL discourages the participation in the contest by basically deleting the Headquarter category ”

    look also on the mesage of F2DX ….

    Nobody is against to public logs…TOP HQ station did log exchange already over the years!!!!
    I was always part of the small coutry HQ team and we never had more as 5% QSOs with own
    country (usualy about 2%), but I still have the opinion that a QSO is a QSO and therefore must count. It takes time
    needs antennas, power, operator etc to be made. Canceling QSOs with own country will decrease great activity in IARU contest!

    If CC find violation in some logs they need to handle……but in this case they want to punish over
    60 teams with over 1000 operators last year and many of them intend to operate this year….

    73
    Braco

  22. ex-VR2BG/p says:

    Braco, what I quoted was from http://www.arrl.org/general-rules-for-all-arrl-contests which you will see referred to at http://www.arrl.org/iaru-hf-championship

    The latter seem to be the rules & I just try to read them, understand what the words mean & consider how they might be applied.

    Even though the rule only applies to participants in the contest, the rule about using a station with >1 call to make contacts during the contest says more than just that – it includes extra words saying that the intention is to prohibit the use of a station to make the sort of contacts that seem to be found in abundance in the DA0HQ log.

    With 500 mults & some 25M points, 1021 1-point Qs would be >2% of DA0HQ’s final published score. The URE analysis suggested that perhaps 1400-odd Qs looked suspicious.

    Although the contacts in question are with stations that didn’t send in an entry, they were contacts that look to fit the description of what the rule says is not supposed to happen.

    Again, I am just reading the rules. The words mean what they say. The rules state that the rather suspiciously “manufactured or artifical” looking uniques in DA0HQ’s log could be numerous enough for a DQ. Is that simple & if you then re-read what NN1N said, what the ARRL has done makes no sense at all.

    A place where the words of the rules don’t mean what they say, where things are what we are told they are & officialdom decides there will be no more discussion about the subject reminds me of China.

    F2DX/F6FVY are on right track, IMHO – but not go far enough. If IARU makes logs public, then the entire contest can be adjudicated by a “shadow” contest committee that doesn’t make decisions based on political favors or the whims of one individual. We might thank ARRL for what it did here, as I can see this as the turning point that upsets enough people that it might be possible to organize a shadow process or even better, a proper non-W-dominated FIFA-like body to oversee our sport.

    You can be sure that I could never have said this in a post to cq-contest – yet another example of China analogy I mentioned above.

    Exercise for readers: see what you can find about this ARRL Awards Committee. Hint: you will not find any mention of it here: http://www.arrl.org/committee-reports

  23. Braco OE1EMS says:

    Graham,

    i found the version of the rules in spanish. All other old rules in english have been removed from the web!
    In the old rules, there is no mentioning that ARRL general contest rules apply for the IARU contest.
    Dont get me wrong, I am not telling that ARRL rules are bad, but i do have a feeling that ARRL
    just change IARU contest rules.
    What I don’t understand: If we take the rules like they are now from the ARRL web site
    and if EA´s log check correct is (don’t forget we haven’t seen so far DL story) why did ARRL refuse
    to punish DA0HQ and DQ them?

    I think our opinion is so far simular or?

    acording CQ-Contest reflektor i found out that most unporular e-mail (cirtic on ARRL or CQ magazine) never been published!

    73s
    Braco

  24. ex-VR2BG/p says:

    Braco, I believe the link for the 2009 rules on the IARU’s contest web page is to where the rules used to be, before a recent redesign of ARRL’s entire web site. The other link for the Spanish rules is a translation that we really can’t use this discussion, as is just a translation (and not really official).

    If you look around, other contest info web sites link to the same place. What looks to be .pdf rendering from the old ARRL web page is at http://sn0hq.org.pl/IARU_rules/iaru-2009_rules.pdf

    I could look back further, but I think the IARU test rules have made reference to the ARRL General
    Rules for All Contests & the ARRL Rules for Contests on Bands below 30 MHz for a while now. This sort of structure for contest rules (where you have to look at >1 document in order to see all the rules for an event) I don’t think is so good.

    As for the ARRL unilaterally changing anything to do with the IARU test, sadly is consequence of IARU out-sourcing the running of this contest to ARRL. Not the IARU International Secretariat (which is the ARRL but is still presumably answerable to IARU), but the ARRL Awards Committee. I still can’t figure out who is on this committee, its terms of reference or find any sort of record of its meetings. Seems to be rather invisible for something that is answerable to anybody. This also appears to be not so good.

    Your next question – about why rules were not applied (maybe meaning the 2% DQ rule & all these rather suspiciously “manufactured or artificial” looking Qs in DA0HQ’s log?) – is hard to say. We did, I must point out, see a response from the DLs earlier on & I note it was not direct but QSPed via ARRL. That to me was not a good sign… though I figured the final outcome would be ARRL deciding in total favor of DARC.

    I suggest the EAs made a mistake by not simply pointing out what I did here earlier – how all those unique Qs in DA0HQ’s log that look an awful lot like the type of Qs mentioned in the use-one-call-per-station rule that should not take place & in total these alone are >2% of their score (criteria for DQ). Instead, the EAs suggested the DL’s operating DA0HQ specifically did something wrong that ARRL can rightfully dismiss as not being able to be proved: that the DA0HQ ops actively sought these suspicious unique Qs. The DA0HQ ops clearly can’t be said to have done that, though I’m really surprised they thought nothing of logging so many calls clearly being fed to them (especially on SSB). Knowingly logging a few clearly “fed” Qs is one thing, but 1400 or maybe more is ridiculous.

    I believe our opinions are very similar, though I must apologize if mine are not clear because of my rousy Engrish. ;^)

    As I guess VE3BMV noted earlier, cq-contest is censored. Posts the censors do not like vanish just like “private DQs” in the CQ WW contest. It is not possible to have a proper discussion there about anything the censors do not approve of. This is another thing that is not at all good for our sport.

  25. Braco OE1EMS says:

    Hi Graham,

    well we know a bit more…..I am almost 100% sure the rules have been changed by ARRL in 2010
    with the new ARRL web site look!
    The rules are in Spanish for 2008, but translate by IARU officer, and located on the IARU page…..this must be enough….

    I would like to see the German reply to ARRL in detail, I just heard they have delivered an explanation for
    each single suspicions QSO.

    K1TTT wrote on CQ-Contest reflector “You can not regulate what non-participants do in a contest.”

    “You are trying to penalize stations for doing something good. That is bad.
    Increasing activity is good, telling stations they can’t make contacts with
    stations that want to contact them is BAD! It is not the way to make the
    contest better, only more complicated by discouraging what could be innocent”

    I like this point of view….but on the other side we have to be very careful with it!
    Line of correct or uncorrect behavior is very tiny.
    If in German log is a prove for logging stations they never worked or
    something simular what is really 100% reason for DQ…..there is no doubt
    that made ARRL another big mistake…..

    my English is not good at all, and sometimes I’m feeling really disadvantaged if i get into
    hard discusion about something very important…… usually I don’t get at all in such discussions
    because i know I can´t express my own point of view how I want to…..but anyway….

    73s
    Braco

  26. ex-VR2BG/p says:

    Braco, it seems like what has happened is the location for the 2009 rules “moved” due to the new ARRL web site. The 2010 rules can be found now at http://www.arrl.org/iaru-hf-championship The rules there appear to incorporate the changes NN1N spoke of.

    That Spanish translation done by YV5AMH & linked to from the IARU page is like other rule translations for other contests – I believe they are just translations, provided more for convenience than as an absolute reference. Though in providing the translations, if they come from somewhere like IARU’s web site, it seems to imply the translation has some authority.

    A big part of radiosport for participants is the activity of non-participants & yes, K1TTT is correct about controlling non-participant’s behavior. However, read the rule about use-only-one-call-per-station & it says that the intention of the rule is to prohibit manufactured or artificial Qs. DA0HQ’s log contains many of what appear to be the sort of Qs the rule clearly says is why there is such a rule. Since it takes two stations to Q, how can this stated intention be ignored when credit is claimed by a participant for such Qs?

    It might help here to remember that one station using different calls to work others does something that doesn’t benefit himself, it benefits those who he works. One station using >1 call can never win. Somebody who works lots of stations that use different calls, as we see here, can win. This rule is pointless unless its clearly stated intention is applied to those who claim credit for being “fed” Qs.

    What the words mean is very important & most of us are going to struggle with understanding the big picture & all the issues involved because of language. This is a clear root problem, starting from the DA0HQ ops not realizing they probably shouldn’t have logged such blatantly “fed” Qs to begin with. I would suggest that some of those who know nothing but English don’t all seem to understand how the game is played, so there is probably room for improvement here. Somewhat ironic for a hobby to do with radio teleCOMMUNICATION. ;^)

  27. Braco OE1EMS says:

    Well this not a far from the reality….but If we need to punish germans beacuse of such behavior we will need to punish others as well (all most every HQ and probably other competitors).
    To be honest during the years i logged not only during IARU HF as HQ station nummbers of such QSOs !!!
    Sometimes when i working some station i allready know he will call me in few minutes with his other call…
    If this rule appleis to DA0HQ then we have to use it as well for other HQ and other competitors…..
    Of yourse the nummbers of such QSO is in DA0HQ log a bit larger thenin others but is there a diference if somebody is “cheating” a bit or more?!!

    If DARC and other society stops to invate theier members to be QRV (0 points for same coutry) on the IARU contest weakend i am afraid nummbers. of QSO´s will be sun down!
    For example
    E7HQ worked over 300 QSO´s with DL´s in 2008 and over 2400 DL´s QSOs in 2009!

    My opinion is if we change the ponits from 1-3-5 to something better and nummbers of QSO with own coutry does not affect the score like now, every one will want work more EU or DX station as station
    with own country!

    73s
    Braco

  28. >>What do you think?<<

    I think that World Cup Match between USA and England was a joy to watch!!

    73 Joe AB9H

  29. ex-VR2BG/p says:

    Braco, maybe feeding calls to others is more of an issue in other parts of the world. Since to feed me Qs means helping me, whoever does this probably needs to have a connection to me: like being a friend, or a local. Used to be if K7JCA called me I probably wouldn’t log it, but now even peoples’ old calls have been reissued & I’m not as certain of when I am being “fed” like before. If not some W7, then I must admit that in my case there is no VR2 who will have any desire help me & certainly no Bravo. So maybe my situation is not a good example. I am only familiar with being sometimes one of very few stations from my multiplier that is QRV in a contest, which is somewhat like being an HQ station (which I have never operated from).

    As you noted, making Qs with HQs zero points is not really helpful. There might even be something that can be done to the rest of Q point structure. But really this whole thing is about rather suspicious unique calls in a participant’s log & instead of making any change to the rules, the entire problem could be solved by simply applying the current rules.

    DARC could encourage its members to get on to work DA0HQ next time, but with a caution: if you only work DA0HQ & enough stations only work DA0HQ, then by doing so you might cause DA0HQ to be DQed, so PLEASE BE SURE TO WORK SOME OTHER STATIONS, TOO.

    HQs are too much a part of this game, the mults are too important now & face it, the HQs help bring out activity that would be very good for the contest if it weren’t for those stations being mostly uniques.

    DARC got a little carried away accepting being fed calls, it brings to light an issue with uniques & rather than deal with it, ARRL has effectively indicated to us all that submitting entries where we’ve been fed Qs (or perhaps even padded our own logs) is okay, since uniques appear to be accepted without question. No rule change I suggest will address a failure to apply the rules to begin with.

    Next IARU contest (and perhaps any ARRL contest), having a Callbook handy seems to be something winners will now need – so they can flip through it & write the calls found into their logs.

  30. Peter says:

    Please, spend half an hour to read the complete dossier in english: http://www.ure.es/images/fbfiles/files/analysis_de_DA0HQ.pdf

    It´s not just cheerleading, it´s also: pirated calls and QSO padding even within DA0HQ Stations !!. In my humble opinnion they must to be disqualified.

  31. Wolfgang Daub says:

    I read myself the analysis. Now I am sure me that DA0HQ is to be disqualifizieren later. The OP `s of DA0HQ do not draw out by unsportliches holding back and have Ham Spirit. It is a dishonor for all Contester. The responsible persons of the DARC should be ashamed. I call all Contester to transact with the next Contest no QSO´S with DA0HQ. Many greetings to all honest Contester.
    73 Wolf

  32. Dietmar DL3DXX says:

    To better understand Wolfgang Daubs Comments about DA0HQ & DARC look here
    http://www.darc.de/referate/dx/contest/wag/archiv/2009/
    at the last point disqualifications and here
    http://www.amateurfunk.de/forum/f.php?m=18858&PHPSESSID=579532728697249005233252b3df02da
    last page only in German
    73 Dietmar

  33. I tend not to leave a great deal of remarks,
    but after looking at some of the remarks here ARRL taking wrong consequences on
    URE vs DA0HQ dispute | Contesting & SDR. I actually do have
    2 questions for you if it’s okay. Is it only me or does it look like a few of these remarks look like they are written by brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are writing at additional places, I would like to keep up with you. Would you list of all of all your public pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

Trackbacks

  1. [...] I received an overwhelming amount of replies on my personal opinion about ARRL’s IARU Contest decisions. Fellow contester agreed, disagreed and expressed their own opinions. The amount of replies is a [...]

Speak Your Mind

*