A message from the Master

In light of the feedback we received at the spring meeting at St Pierre du Bois we would like to propose the following tweaks to the rules of the 8 bell competition.  The intention is to have the short meeting before the competition where we will vote on the changes.  To save time we will not have a discussion at the meeting, only the vote, so NOW is the time to discuss the proposals in towers and feedback to us your comments.  We will happily forward any feedback to all towers so everyone is aware of everyone’s opinion.  The proposals are intended to help everyone to focus on improving their striking for the competition, ring their best on the day, include everyone who attends and leave plenty of time for general ringing.
1. Replace the District team with a scratch team to include any ringers attending the day who are not part of their island’s team as the 4th band in the competition
2. Remove the 15 min of practice time for visiting towers but allow each team 10 min practice before their test piece instead of 2.
3. Teams may ring any true touch of triples or major of length 224 changes. A team may ring a minimum of 224 called changes but this must be made known in advance so the judge is prepared.
Thanks, Duncan

7 thoughts on “A message from the Master

  1. From Peter Routier:
    My comments as follows:

    1) I don’t see any point in the scratch team idea – who is going to be in it? – either we have the district team in or just have the three island teams.

    2) Reasonably ambivalent about this, but it didn’t seem awfully unreasonable to give the away teams a bit more of a practice.

    3) Fine with me

    I agree with Richard with regard to the debate at meetings. However regrettable it may seem, it is actually not within his power to predetermine that a debate will not happen at the meeting. I don’t mind the matter being given an airing beforehand, with the aim of killing off options that are finding little support, but I’m afraid if we end up re-debating the issues, it is the chairman’s job to keep it as short and sweet as possible.

  2. From Mike Bubb:
    Why was this not brought up at the ADM.?

    Reply from Duncan:
    It wasn’t raised at the ADM because I wasn’t the master before the ADM so I didn’t put much (or any) proactive thought into district days. After the meeting I started to think about the spring meeting as the sooner we organise it the better people will be able to make plans to attend. Also some people commented at the ADM about arrangements being too last minute and I didn’t want that if I could help it. Once I was thinking about it I remembered the comments I heard at the spring meeting and started a discussion with the committee about how we might incorporate those ideas whilst not losing the thrust of the day. After a couple of weeks of emails back and forth we agreed the statement to go out to members which you have now received.

    I’m keen to get feedback – I hope you will take the proposals well as they were devised based on the criticisms and comments I heard, but if the overwhelming feedback is that the vote will be a no then we will know to prepare for the competition as it currently stands. Equally if anyone has a better idea it can be voiced to everyone and they can all feedback on that.

    In fact, compared to a physical meeting we have much more time to think about each other’s comments and ideas before responding and gather our own thoughts properly before replying. Plus much longer to have the discussion without losing precious ringing time together on a meeting day – although I would hope to have it sorted by the end of November if possible, then each island knows what to start practicing for April! If the rules are not changed the touch will be of Grandsire triples.

    Hope that helps, do ask if you want any more information.

  3. From John David:
    The proposed rules as to methods are in line with the Guild inter-district competition [2017] which now allows a touch of 224 changes of any triples or major method or call changes. As the current rules were based on the Guild ones this change could probably have been made by the RM’s decision alone, as I believe were our original rules.
    .
    I think this alteration a good thing.

    Call changes on seven where each bell leads needs a minimum of 42 changes, difficult to achieve in the time it takes to ring 224

  4. From Helen McGregor:
    1. I think reducing the practice time for the 2 visiting teams is a great idea – we are now more familiar with ringing 8 at the various venues it is not unreasonable to reduce it. 6 mins for visiting islands and 2 mins for the local team would get my vote but I would not oppose 10 mins for visitors if there is a push for that.

    2. Please retain the District Team entry in inter-island 8 bell competition, unless of course you are planning a qtr/peal slot for them in another tower in which case that would be even better :-):-) particularly if there is no longer a set touch so they won’t necessarily have been practicing the same method

    3. Will the promise of ringing in a Scratch Team really bring more ringers to the District Meeting? – what if we end up with 9 or 10 non-team ringers do we have 2 scratch teams? Time is the great enemy of all District Days and scrapping one District Team striving for perfection in favour of possibly 2 Scratch Teams willing to ‘have a go’ doesn’t sound like working towards improving the striking of CI bellringers. Would all the scratch teams get 6/10 mins or just the 2 mins practice? Do the Scratch teams ring last so the in-fill don’t get an extra practice? do you beef up the Scratch with Justin, Peter R, Peter B & Stephen – further reducing the opportunity for the better ringers to ring something which will benefit them? soooo many options/scope for disagreement:-( How about removing the limit of one team per island and then if there are 3 ringers from say Gsy looking to come over they can try to rustle up another 5 to enter as Gsy (2) – at least they can practice together & be prepared to do their best on the day rather than just some ad hoc piece of crashing about. But then how many ‘shared’ ringers between Gsy (1) & Gsy(2)?

    4. I favour Occum’s razor – just 3 Island teams & the District team can go off and ring a qtr somewhere else 🙂 = Masses of time for General Ringing – the competition will be over in under 30 mins

  5. From Stephen Rossiter:
    1. Yes, there should definitely be a scratch team, but there could also be a guild team especially if it was the intention of that team to enter the guild 8 bell, something I think the district should always be aiming it, even if it is not possible every year.
    2. 10 minutes before the test piece is far too long – five would be adequate and no need for special practices for teams before hand. Those ringing at this level should be able to adapt quickly enough in the five minutes given. The time can be stopped for rope adjustments etc…
    3. I would say the touch does not have to be true. I would use the Guild rules for this which are:
    ·        224 changes in any Triples or Major method(s) of the team’s own choice. All of the changes (but not the rounds before or after) will be judged.
    ·        Call changes. The team may choose the changes to be rung but all the bells except the tenor are to take a turn at leading. The opening rounds and the stand will not be judged. Teams must ring for at least five minutes after the first change is called.

  6. Duncan says: The intention is to have the short meeting before the competition where we will vote on the changes. To save time we will not have a discussion at the meeting, only the vote, so NOW is the time to discuss the proposals in towers and feedback to us your comments. We will happily forward any feedback to all towers so everyone is aware of everyone’s opinion.

    I object to these radical procedural changes and I am fairly sure that others will do so too. I do not think that Duncan is wise to try to stifle debate about his proposals at the meeting, by simply announcing that there will only be a vote. It seems highly irregular. If it is constitutional, it ought not to be.

    Nor do I think that it is a good idea for the debate to be conducted by channelling everybody’s opinions through this website and by forwarding ‘any feedback to all towers so everyone is aware of everyone’s opinion’. We have a traditional and functional system for debating and deciding issues, and it is the general meeting of the District.

    Duncan might not actually save time by trying to conduct this debate in this way. Not everyone will have seen this website, not everyone will have seen the ’feedback to all towers’. Inevitably people will want to address some of the issues prior to a vote, and to urge people to vote either for or against, especially with regard to proposals and changes to procedure as radical as these.

    Duncan says NOW is the time to discuss the proposals. I disagree. I would rather have a meeting where everyone has the opportunity to express themselves in the spoken word. Even though a spoken debate may take a little while, reading and writing posts on this website is going to take considerably longer (this post has taken me more than three hours to write), and there is no guarantee that everyone will be involved. Is it wise to replace a half hour discussion under a strict chairperson with up to six months of to-ing and fro-ing on this website, and multiple emails of ‘feedback to all towers’? (There have already been five posts on the website, but not one of them, it seems, has yet been forwarded to all towers. )

    I ask Duncan to reconsider. If he does not, I am sure that even more time will be wasted at the meeting, debating the rights and wrongs of procedural matters, than would happen if we simply debated the issues in accordance with our traditional practice.

    The proposals:

    1. Replace the District team with a scratch team to include any ringers attending the day who are not part of their island’s team as the 4th band in the competition.

    This is simply wrong in its intent and its inevitable consequences. Duncan seems to be saying that there should not be a team which, (only) once a year, represents the District in the life of the Guild. What’s more, by asking for this to be incorporated into the rules of the District, Duncan seems to be saying that he does not want there to be a District team ever again. Duncan may not personally want to liaise with his membership and select a willing and able band of (only) eight ringers to act as our ambassadors into the wider world of ringing, but surely he should have thought of that before accepting the nomination to the office whose traditional responsibility this duty is. Worse than this however, is what seems to be an attempt to incorporate this reticence into the rules of the District for the foreseeable future.

    I would like Duncan to explain to the membership why there should not be an attempt to put together a district 8 bell band now, and why there should never be a district band ever again. How does cutting ourselves off from the life of the rest of the Guild in this way serve any positive purpose? ‘As if we were not isolated enough …… ‘

    There is another procedural issue here, which is that Duncan does not seem to allow for the possibility that his proposals will not be accepted. How can we prepare for a competition whose rules will not be known until moments before the start? Suppose, for example, that one island prepares a call change team, and the meeting rejects proposal 3. What do we do then?

    As for scratch teams in general, the more the merrier ….

    2. Remove the 15 min of practice time for visiting towers but allow each team 10 min practice before their test piece instead of 2.

    I am not convinced that ten or fifteen minutes will be enough. I would argue that each team should take as much practice time as they deem to be necessary. The idea of this competition is to encourage a good standard of ringing. Even Duncan says : The proposals are intended to help everyone to focus on improving their striking for the competition, ring their best on the day’. I am not convinced that limiting the practice time in the proposed way will serve that purpose. Allowance must surely be made for lack of experience and unfamiliar bells. If, however, a band wishes to have a shorter practice, or wishes to forego their pracice entirely, I can think of nothing to stop them. The argument that it will take too much time rather misses the point about ‘ringing their best on the day’.

    I would also argue that the 8 bell competition has become the focal point of the Spring meeting. I would also ask people if they agree that in the few years before the introduction of the 8 bell competition, the Spring meeting was a desultory and sparsely attended affair? In my view we have never had a better meeting, Spring or Autumn, in the last few years, than the Spring meeting last year at S Pierre du Bois. The success of the meeting was due, I believe, to the balance between a well-fought striking competition and the exceptional management by the master of the general ringing.

    3. Teams may ring any true touch of triples or major of length 224 changes. A team may ring a minimum of 224 called changes but this must be made known in advance so the judge is prepared.

    I support the possibility of call changes for this competition, but this is very clumsy wording. It could mean so many different things. How many changes of order must there be? Does it mean 224 rows or 224 changes of row? Is it sufficient, for example, to call the bells into Queens and then ring that row 200 or so times? How many times must each bell lead? Must all bells lead? Must the tenor be called to lead as well? Must the test piece begin and end in rounds? How long will it take for them to execute 224 called changes? Will there be a time limit? Why ‘a minimum’? If time is of the essence then surely some kind of maximum should be set. Etc, etc. There must be pre-exisiting rules for 8 bell call change striking competitions, Is it not possible for some of these to be produced for us to consider? If Duncan wants to have shorter meetings, such a lack of clarity is unlikely to serve his purpose.

    In conclusion,

    There are rules in place, both for the striking competition and for the conduct of meetings, and there is an accepted way to change those rules. I argue that the Spring meeting should be conducted according to the exisiting rules and traditional arrangements. There should be an opportunity to discuss the proposed procedural changes and the changes to the rules of the 8 bell striking competition at the meeting. There should be an attempt to organise a district team. Any changes of rules to the 8 bell competition agreed at the 2018 Spring meeting should come into effect at the Spring district meeting in 2019. Any changes to the traditional practice regarding the conduct of meetings should also be put as formal proposals. The divisions that exist in our little association are wide enough without providing dissenting members with even more ammunition.

  7. Duncan’s proposals as they stand raise several points:

    Purpose and status of the spring meeting.

    Up to now the spring business meeting has been limited as far as possible to uncontroversial matters of immediate necessity, like the election of new members or problems with dates and travel. This has been accepted because the main meeting of the year when decisions should be made is the AGM with the 6-bell striking competition which attracts the largest attendance. It may be remembered that it was originally proposed to have the six bell competition in the spring and the 8-bell at the AGM, but that was vigorously defeated by the membership for that reason

    The changes proposed to the 8-bell striking-competition rules.

    The proposed rules as to methods are in line with the Guild inter-district competition [2017] which now allows a touch of 224 changes of any triples or major method or call changes. As the current rules were based on the Guild ones this change could probably have been made by the RM’s decision alone, as were the original rules.

    [I personally think this change is a good thing, allowing each band to choose what they think they can ring best, though I have reservations about the call change option. Call changes on seven where each bell leads needs a minimum of 42 changes, difficult to achieve in the time it takes to ring 224

    I am not sure that a band that can only ring call changes is likely to be of the standard we are expecting.

    However provision might need to be made if an Island team should ring “Devon style” call changes to the standard often reached there

    Other bands

    I do not see the need for or desirability of scratch bands . This is an Inter-Island competition and that should be the focus. The ringing of unconnected people who have not rung before as a band (and who will not ring together again) is not likely to be of competition standard and any comments are likely to be of limited benefit to them.

    If there is to be a district entry into the Guild inter-district then it is a good opportunity to have the district band’s ringing commented on by the competition judge, especially as this may be the only occasion that they will be able to ring together as a band, but it should not be marked as part of the competition.

    If the proposed alterations are to be voted on then each section should be a separate proposition; discussion, and vote.

    Looking ahead

    Has any thought been given to using Hawkear (where it is available) as the judge, thus saving the district a considerable amount of money in fares?

    John David

    1/12/17

Leave a Reply