[r-t] Great Barr

[Philip Saddleton]

Robin Woolley said  on 22/12/2004 10:32:

>Rather than re-invent the wheel, in hving to plough through all the methods
>rung when someone else has done it already, what did they do 'wrong'?
>
>Was it:
>
>i) Ringing, say, Primrose half-lead spliced with Cambridge in opposite
>half-leads in the same extent, or
>
>ii) Ringing half a lead of Cambridge in one extent with a similar half
>lead - in the sense of 1st/2nd - of Ipswich in separate extents.?
>
>(I know they rang plain, but the choice of methods above  is more familiar
>to most of us).
>
>Isn't a fundamental problem here the use of the word 'Compositions' rather
>than 'Peals'?
>  
>

(D)C.2:
 Peals consisting of extents and/or round blocks shall only be called 
Spliced if each extent or round block is spliced.

It seems clear that the extents or round blocks are separate 
Compositions, hence ii) would not prevent a peal being described as 
Spliced. Indeed, it would seem to be possible to ring the same extent 
twice and describe it as a different combination of methods each time.

>This reminds me of the 500 spliced major in 1983. This was re-named 250
>asymmetric spliced and further re-named 497 spliced. I was working abroad at
>the time, so could someone remind us of the salient points as to the second
>renaming.
>  
>
I don't have the minutes of the 1984 meeting to hand, but in the MC 
report in 1985:

"The discussion arose from the 1984 Council debate on the Ely DA peal 
claimed in 500 methods. In March the Committee had reported to the 
Administrative Committee that there was no technical reason why the 500 
methods should not be recognised. At the Council meeting the  technical 
considerations were ignored, resulting in a decision to record 250 
Asymmetric methods, a conclusion which this Committee cannot accept and 
is seeking to remedy."

I believe that Marcus Sherwood, then MC Chairman, was ill, and absent 
from the 1984 meeting, and that consequently the MC opinion was 
insufficiently represented. At the 1985 meeting there were attempts to 
rule a MC motion out of order, but it was eventually put and carried by 
a large majority (applause).

-- 
Regards
Philip
http://www.saddleton.freeuk.com/