[r-t] Minor Blocks

[Andrew Graham]

>From: Alan Reading alan.reading at googlemail.com
>
>Is it the intention of this rule to imply that a method must be divisible
>into more than 1 equal part? To my mind it doesn't explicitly make this
>clear.
>If not then I can't see anything else in the rules that would mean the
>'methods' in this performance
>http://www.bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=338918 had to be described as
>blocks rather than as methods.
 
I've no idea what the intention of the rule is, but it clearly says parts and leads i.e. plural so our view would be that these wouldn't count as methods
 
No doubt we will be informed if this isn't the case!
 
AJG