[r-t] Change Proposal to CC Decisions

Andrew Johnson andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com
Fri Jun 16 15:16:41 UTC 2006

I think these changes are a bad idea.

The 5000 change rule is an artificial limit, whereas peal lengths based on 
extents have a mathematical purity. We can't change the definition of 
peals of major and above now to be at least 5040 changes, but the 
difference isn't great as both are still partial extents.

You can start to explain a peal to a beginner or a non-ringer as 
originally being a performance where all the combinations on 7 bells are 
rung once, and once only. These rules would remove that logic.

The partial extent rule would also allow peals of doubles, minor and 
triples to be 'fixed' if a call is omitted by simply ringing a whole plain 
course then putting the call in the correct place. Extra bobs could be 
'fixed' by calling another 2 calls. That is doesn't desirable.

You could get a bobs-only peal of Grandsire Triples etc. by ringing one 
course twice and all the other courses once.

You could ring a 40328 of major by ringing 40320 Plain Bob and 2 singles 
of Bastow (or an extent + two changes of 'X'). There may be some logic 
however in allowing multiple extents of major.

The  methods rule would mean that methods could be named for which there 
is not much hope of there being a single-method peal. There's quite enough 
name grabbing for methods, and this could encourage the ringing of more 
'worthless methods'. It would be interesting if the Methods Committee each 
year would declare some new methods rung as being 'worthless' and 
reflecting 'discredit on their composers' (or declare them all as worthy 
additions to the exercise).

Should a band be able to name a doubles or minor method by ringing an 
extent of it where the performance wouldn't meet the peal ringing 
E.g. Which conditions should be required?
Starting and ending in rounds?
No physical aids
The current rules seem to require a band that rings an extent of a 
doubles/minor method which doesn't meet the requirements of a method still 
to name it.
I think that to name a method by ringing an extent the performance must 
meet the requirements of a peal (apart from the length).

I'd prefer rule B.1 to say that peals must have at least 3 people ringing 
to help settle any dispute about the peal. Perhaps the reason for the rule 
is that peals of minimus weren't originally allowed, and hand bell ringers 
should be able to find more bells, but people want to ring peals at 4-bell 

Andrew Johnson
Twyford, Hampshire
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20060616/b3c5de7f/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7647 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20060616/b3c5de7f/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list