[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

Richard Grimmett richard at grimmett.org
Tue Mar 21 12:47:45 UTC 2017

On 21/03/2017 12:25, Mark Davies wrote:
> On Change 3.0(E), obviously this has always been ignored in the past 
> anyway, but to my mind it is useful to set some standards. No, ringing 
> doesn't have to be perfect, but neither is it good to ring for course 
> after course with bells swapped over. Is this enforceable? No. Should 
> it be stated somewhere? Yes, I think there's no harm in that, and some 
> good.
> Perhaps there are some better words we could use, though. How about 
> "Errors in calling should be corrected quickly". I think it's 
> important to convey an intention here - "you can't let errors creep 
> into a peal and stay there for too long" - but without being 
> prescriptive.

In plain methods the error should be corrected within one lead. With 
stedman within one six.


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list