[r-t] Peals of spliced / methods committe query

[Philip Earis]

I apologise for this being slightly off-topic for this list, but I'm
very confused by what Tony Smith said in his RW letter this week about
the recent 'peal' of 478 minor in Birmingham.  I know that several
members of the Methods Committee are on this list (as are some of the
band who rang), so I hope the matter can be debated and resolved.

Please note that am I not trying to diminish the achievement of the band
that rang the 'peal', or of the conductor who called it.  They are all
super people, and I'm not trying to cause unnecessary trouble here. I
have been known to break a few CC decisions myself in the past.  There
are some CC decisions I disagree with, but this is not the point here.
For the record, I think the essence of the decision in question is
correct, though some clarification about 'symmetry' is needed.

The point is that the job of the committee chairman is to interpret the
decisions as they stand, and I feel that he has made a critical error in
this case.

The relevant CC Decision is:
=====
(D) Peal Ringing
[c] Peals in more than one method
(1)Compositions in more than one method in which the change of method
occurs at the lead-head and/or the half-lead shall be called 'Spliced'.
In the case of compositions containing changes of method at both the
half-lead and the lead-head, all the methods shall be symmetrical about
the half-lead with no two of them differing only in the places made at
the half-lead and/or the lead-head.
=====

In the composition for the 478 methods, some of the methods only
differed "in the places made at the half-lead and/or the lead-head".
Thus the peal does not conform to the decisions and should therefore be
kicked out.  This seems very clear to me.

Tony Smith in his letter says that the peal can stand, but cannot be
called 'spliced'.  However, the first sentence of the decision above
means that the composition was 'spliced', but just doesn't conform and
hence is not valid.

So what is Tony's reasoning?





DISCLAIMER:

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.