[r-t] Re: Record lengths

freepabs at freeuk.com freepabs at freeuk.com
Fri Oct 29 11:28:20 UTC 2004

> But it is the Methods Committee who "advise on all questions 
> arising from the interpretation of the Council's Decisions 
> relating to ... peal ringing".  Suppose a 24,480 of Spliced 
> T.D. Minor is rung in hand without umpires -- is this, 
> according to the Decisions, a legal peal?

Yes - the Decision makes no reference to separate records for spliced 
and non-spliced. 

> My reading of the Decisions suggests that if long peal is 
> rung unumpired which subsequently turns out to be a record 
> length, then that renders the peal illegal.

I don't think that illegal is the correct term - it means that it won't 
be published in the RW, or included in the analysis.

But then if it doesn't comply with (D)D it is not a Record Length Peal, 
so there's no need for it to comply.

> Surely in this 
> case, defining what the meaning of "groups of methods" in 
> Decision (D)D is the business of the MC, even if recording 
> the record lengths is the job of the RC (or of no-one if the 
> omission of record lengths in more than one method from the 
> RC's terms of reference)?

I think that the MC's advice would be to refer you to the RC.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list