[r-t] Latest draft of Decisions changes for 2017

Andrew Johnson andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com
Thu Apr 20 09:20:02 UTC 2017

> From: Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net>
> SJB asks,
> > Does this mean that, if I'm calling a peal of triples
>  > and miss a call, I can just wait and put it in next
>  > time round, and describe the end result as a 5124
>  > (or whatever length)?
> Well not really, because (D)A.9 will say "Bands should strive to 
> maintain a high standard of ringing, and errors in ringing or calling
> should be corrected quickly".
> However if you deliberately set out to ring this, then yes it would be 
> fine. As I was saying before, it would also enable a reasonably short 
> bobs-only peal of Grandsire Triples to be rung, in 5138 changes or maybe 

> less.
I disagree with MBD on the effect of the decision. An error in calling 
could be corrected in this way and there is no need to deliberately set 
out to ring this to take advantage. Under the existing decisions 
conductors can and do recompose peals while ringing them, sometimes after 
a miscall, sometimes deliberately to aid the band by avoiding a tricky 
part. Omitting/adding 3 homes at a different place, calling a different 
method in spliced, calling an easier extent of minor/doubles than 
originally planned have all been done. So long as 'truth' is maintained no 
one minds, even if characteristics such as music or all-the-work are lost.

If this decision passes then you can hardly argue that the intention 
matters unless you also said it was not a high standard of ringing to do 
this any time. I would say deliberately repeating a course is worse.

How long before a conductor deliberately repeats a course in a peal 
because Queens was unevenly struck the first time?

Andrew Johnson

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list