[r-t] FW: FW: Proposed definition of a peal

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Wed Aug 6 13:21:04 UTC 2008

> For those that may be missing the distinction (or in case I've got it wrong,
> in which case my spelling it out will cause someone else to correct me):
> - at small stages we are allowed to mix stage N with a cover with
>   stage N + 1 without a cover, without treating stage N as if they were
>   rows of stage N + 1, but always with the tenor in last place; that
>   is, if we view all the rows clumped together as of stage N + 1, the
>   result would be viewed as false
> - at higher stages we are required to treat rows of stage N as if they
>   were of stage N + 1, and avoid the repetition of, say, a Cinques row
>   with a Maximus row with the tenor behind
> Why do we as ringers make this distinction?
> Do we need to preserve an artificial special case here? Does anyone have any
> insight into why?
> Unlike all the other comments made on this so far, this one is not just
> about the wording, it is about the underlying ideas, and thus is especially
> needing discussion and collective thought. Can anyone help shed some light,
> please?

I think that the extent lies at the heart of this, as with most distinctions between smaller and larger stages. Without checking the rules, on the smaller stages, peals should be made up of extents or multi-extent round blocks, which is not applicable at higher stages. I think a way to solve this is to count all rows as being at the highest stage, unless they can be grouped into a complete extent at a lower stage (with the same fixed bells fixed in the same fixed positions). This sounds quite restrictive at first, but i think it allows everything allowed currently and allows freedom mixing small stages without compromising the level of truth i would expect from something like spliced cinques and maximus.
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search 

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list