[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

[Ted Steele]

On 22/03/2017 14:20, John Harrison wrote:
> In article <7f182067-06a2-f5f1-1d48-9823322a124c at tesco.net>,
>    Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> A rule that allows for errors in calling to be corrected after the
>> event, however quickly, would therefore potentially also allow for
>> falseness;
>
> I assume here that falseness refers to the sequence of blows actually
> struck rather than to the rows that were theoretically rung.

It does. However if the bells are rung in the order required by the 
incorrect call or absence of call then they are not just "actually rung" 
they are also correctly struck in accordance with the actual calling 
used. If that inadvertent calling gives rise to falseness then the touch 
is false. This is not the same as the missed dodge situation that you 
describe and which is well covered by custom and practice within the 
existing traditions.
>
> If you take that perspective, then you would logically also check every
> missed dodge or other crunch that reversed the order in which two adjacent
> bells sounded.

I suppose that the existing decisions already technically require that; 
a fact that has given rise to some fine disputes down the years about 
whether a peal has been within the limits that should be tolerated for 
such situations. Custom and practice, as I say seems adequate to police 
this. On reflection, a rule that allowed some delay in "correcting" an 
error should give rise to even more scope for dispute. So go ahead with 
it, why not, and lets see the letters pages of RW once more full of 
acrimonious disputes about whether peals have been good enough to record 
or not; it should be great for circulation. Of course if peals no longer 
have to be audible outside the tower it would spoil all the fun, and the 
whole thing would become rather academic.

Ted