[r-t] Spliced Cinques & Max

[Ted Steele]

  On 22/09/2010 17:13, Stephen Penney wrote:
> TS: "This is not an exclusive statement and It does not rule out the
> possibility that other arrangements might also be called spliced (unless
> this is achieved by some other ruling that has not been quoted)."
>
> The relevant 'exclusive' rule is:
>
> C.2: Peals consisting of extents and/or round blocks shall only be called
> Spliced if each extent or round block is spliced.
>
> So the example Richard gave of a peal of minor stating and ending with the
> same method would not be called "spliced", as it contains round blocks
> which aren't.

That's helpful, but doesn't answer the point.

(D)C.1: gives an example of something that shall be called spliced.

C.2: gives an example of something else that shall be called spliced, 
and the special case in which it shall not.

Neither rule defines the term "spliced" and other possibilities remain. 
At least as far as I can see.

Is there a formally adopted council ruling about the definition of 
spliced? Or is it another of those things that has been determined only 
in relation to individual cases as they arose?

My understanding of spliced is a very simple one. It is a change from 
one method to another at any point within a touch; i.e not at the end of 
it or when rounds occurs at the end of a round block. No doubt this is 
over simplistic and there will be situations that it doesn't suit.

Ted