[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

Ted Steele teds.bells at tesco.net
Wed Mar 22 11:41:49 UTC 2017

On 21/03/2017 22:26, Don Morrison wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net
> <mailto:teds.bells at tesco.net>> wrote:
>> Consider the common case of a peal containing a simple 720 of PB6
>> which is two bobs-only 360s joined by singles. A missed or incorrect
>> call at halfway will obviously invalidate that as a true extent.
> No, I don't believe that this is correct. Simply carry on ringing the
> subsequent second in course 360. When you get to the end of that, call a
> single, and then ring two out of course 360s, ending with another
> single. You've just rung a perfectly acceptable 1,440.

Thank you, that is true but I am rather surprised that it is considered 
acceptable; clearly I chose a bad example in referring to minor. So 
there would appear to be no reason why a peal should not consist of 
seven in-course 360s ending with a single and repeated; just two singles 
in the whole peal.

However it does not alter my point that a calling error may cause 
immediate falseness that cannot be put right by any amount of later 
amendment of the calling. A rule that allows for errors in calling to be 
corrected after the event, however quickly, would therefore potentially 
also allow for falseness; unless the rule be written with all sorts of 
caveats. As I said, better there be no rule if a consistently applicable 
one is not possible. There is also the matter of what is meant by 
"corrected". The rule as written appears perfectly appropriate to me and 
is clear. You cannot "correct" a calling error after its effect has been 
implemented; you can only alter its effect by changing or adding other 
calls which may or may not maintain truth. The practice of forcing bells 
back into their correct order does not appear to merit legitimation by 


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list