[r-t] Old methods

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Thu Jul 17 10:54:09 UTC 2008

Robin Woolley wrote:

> Since the Norwich meeting in 2002, this decision has read:
> "E. Analysis
> The Analysis shall include all peals published in The Ringing World and
> shall identify peals not complying with parts A to D above."

Even since 2002, this decision has been used to exclude
non-conforming peals.

On 30 Dec 2003, I rang in a peal of 7 minor methods where
each extent contravened a different CC decision.  As a
result, this peal was "not complying with parts A to D".

We sent it to the Ringing World for publication.  The
Ringing World, apparently on the advice of the Methods
Committee (or more likely, its then chairman) refused to
publish it as a peal, and instead published it under some
heading like 'Miscellaneous performances'.

Because of this, when it came to the Analysis, the peal was
not included in any fashion at all.  It wasn't included with
all of the 'normal' peals; nor was it it identified as a
non-complying peal.  I'm told that this is because the Peals
Analysis Commitee (again, apparently on the advise of the
Methods Committee) decided that, as it was not published in
the Ringing World as a peal, it shouldn't included in the
analysis in any fashion.

So, irrespective of what the 2002 change to the Decisions
was intended to achieve, it is still the case that
non-conforming peals are not recognised by the Central
Council.  So when you said "since 2002, the Council has NOT
*recognised* any peal whatsoever", I'm sorry, but that's
just not the case.  It should be, but isn't.

> The argument, based on Grandsire, is irrelevant because all we are talking
> about here a method having a different name if it has thirds place over a
> different pair of hunt-bells. In fact, I happen to agree with Eddie in this
> case but do we really want to change names every-time the fashion changes?

The Grandsire / New Grandsire argument is about more than
just names.  Findind a conforming desciption of a peal of
spliced Grandsire and New Grandsire is difficult under the
current Decisions.  Clearly you could just call it Original
with lots of 3rds place bobs, but that doesn't really
reflect how it is actually rung.

If Grandsire and New Grandsire are to be considered the same
method, then splicing them involves changing the length of
the lead and that is verbotten.  Alternatively you have to
insert both a 3rds place bob for the early thirds together
with a 7ths place call to remove the late thirds.  And a
framework that forces you to make up extra calls in order
for it to conform seems pretty iffy to me.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list