[r-t] nths place

[Matthew Frye]

On 17 Jul 2014, at 05:22, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> Let us be clear on this, since 2002, the CC does not recognise peals.

That this needs repeating so often perhaps shows how untrue it is. I don't think CC necessarily intends it, but to most ringers (not all, but a large majority) the CC Decisions are a de facto set of rules for whether their peal is valid or not. And while the decisions exist, I think it's irresponsible to deny their importance and status by hiding behind terminology of peal analysis.

If the decisions really were just about the analysis, do you think there would be so much discussion of them? Both here and the wider ringing community? If people really didn't care about them and take them as a set of strict rules, if they weren't the criteria for whether your peal is recognised or not, then why were several peals of Block Methods rung immediately after the decisions were changed to recognise them? (again, forward-thinking exceptions existed)

The decisions *ARE* a set of rules, whether you or I like it or not. And I think that fact needs to be acknowledged by anyone who works on them.

MF