Revision to Striking Contest Rules

The Management Group have been considering alterations to the striking contests rules in line with the Association’s Rule 6.

The main objective of the changes are to encourage the Derbyshire Young Ringers to become more involved in order for them to gain competition experience prior to the National competition.

After considerable discussion by email a consensus has been reached by the group on the changes to be incorporated, which includes some tidying up of the rules. The amended rules can be viewed by clicking on the link below. The pertinent changes are shown with blue text in this attachment. Whilst changes to the contest rules are the responsibility of the Management Group we welcome constructive comment. In order for these revisions to be included in the 2019 Annual Report please let us have any comments prior to 15th January.

Striking Competition Rules

Please login (as a member or subscriber) to comment on this post.

9 thoughts on “Revision to Striking Contest Rules”

  1. I and my fellow ringers at Old Whittington strongly object to the test piece being reduced to 120 changes.
    It has worked at 240 changes for over 50 years and gives the bands time to settle into a rhythm.
    “If it ai’nt broke don’t try and fix it!”

  2. Will we be given the opportunity to see any amendments to the proposed rules before the Management Group finalises them, please?

  3. I also see no reason for the length of test piece to be reduced to 120 changes.
    Would it not also be good that young ringers can enter a team in any or all of the district heats – as indeed normally happens in the Chesterfield District anyway as they would be eligible for the Newman Cup. The only change this would bring in terms of the Chesterfield District would be that the team could then progress to the finals, which they can’t at present.
    There seemed to be some confusion at the Chesterfield District ADM yesterday as to when these changes would be implemented, with a suggestion it could be between some heats and the final – this needs to be changed at the beginning of the year so the new rules apply to all heats and the final.
    I think it is excellent to include young ringers but not sure about the idea of a bye to the final – would it not be a better idea just to relax the rules about ringing for more than one team to allow youngsters to compete on a level footing with everyone else – after all, one of the great things about ringing is that it doesn’t matter how old you are, it is how good you are on the end of a bell rope that matters?

  4. sue.peach@yahoo.co.uk

    I would tend to agree with Graham Hayward’s comments regarding both the length of the test piece, and the “grey areas” or suggestions which are subjective and can’t be legislated for effectively. What’s appropriate for the band can change drastically if just one person has to drop out at the last minute. Let the band decide. The best teams win by being good strikers, not because they rang Doubles or Triples instead of Surprise.
    Absolutely right about the ringing taking time to settle down, especially for more nervous, less experienced bands. A 240 gives any team enough time to calm down and show their best. It can be hard to field a team at all for many towers these days, and some members may feel that turning out for 120 changes isn’t worth it. If the aim is to shorten the contest time, that seems to say “we don’t really want to devote time to striking contests much any more”. Surely there are not so many bands making it to the finals these days that we need to shorten the time, and the more teams the better I would have thought.
    Re the amendments for young ringers, they seem sensible in the main. Names for teams need not be DYR, but chosen by the band to reflect that they are young ringers.
    I have never thought that the non-peal ringing rule encouraged bands to enter; rather, it has sometimes prevented a weaker team from having enough stiffening. When peal ringing was more de rigueur as the next step for anyone who could ring Bob Minor (I remember Gordon forcing so many youngsters through their first peal, a rite of passage), it made more sense. What if like me you haven’t rung one for over 10 years?
    Please keep the 240 changes.

  5. Speaking as a judge, I find it easier to separate teams when they ring 240s. 120 doesn’t save much time (most of the time is getting up the tower, assigning bells etc). I’d be against reducing the length of the test piece. If nothing else it can be surprising how much a band’s ringing can improve as they settle down in the second half of a 240. 120s seem to produce slightly more random results.

    As regards rule 5 – either legislate for having a certain number of ringers from the heats or don’t. A suggestion is likely to be ignored by bands who want to field their strongest team (and so isn’t worth anything as a rule). I’d suggest either making a proper rule or dropping it – suggestions such as “as far as practical” can’t be adjudicated, which at the end of the day is the purpose of the rules.

    1. And the same comments apply to rule 8 final clause. Who’s to judge what’s in keeping with the ability of a band and what’s the mechanism for penalising non-compliance? Once again here’s a case of shades of grey – the rules either need to be unambiguous or they can’t be seen to be fair to all participants. For any rule there needs to be a clear-cut way of deciding when it’s been broken.

  6. I’m pleased to see that the bonuses for methods have been dropped.
    Although I was the instigator of this, many years ago, I think it has served and then outlived its purpose.
    As far as I can recall, the bonus for methods has never changed the winner in a contest from what it would have been without the bonus.
    For some reason, the teams that can ring complex methods are also the ones that strike best!

  7. How would the proposed rules distinguish a DYR team from another young ringers team?
    Why only one DYR team in either contest and in only one heat? – e.g. if a team of young ringers calling themselves ‘DYR’ enter a PB5 band in the Southern district heats, the proposed rules would prevent any other young ringers band entering in any other district even as a call change band.
    Young Ringers often enter a legitimate (or scratch) band in the Chesterfield district Newman Cup contest, so would the proposed rules prevent them from entering the Newman Cup contest?
    The proposed rules would mean that a legitimate young ringers team (complying with rule 2), even as a tower band, would no longer count towards the number of teams entered, but would be treated as a scratch band.

    6-bell contest suggestions:
    – Amend rule 1 to ‘Each team should, as far as possible, consist of ringers from the same tower, or consist of young ringers under 19 years of age (age on 31st August in the year of the contest).’
    – Amend the rules to allow ringers under 19 years of age to ring in the Arthur Ashby Cup heats/final even if they have rung more than one peal (in any team, not just a DYR team).
    – Do not add/amend any other rules for DYR/young ringers in the district heats; leave those rules as they are (maybe simplified and allow scratch teams).
    – A rule to give DYR teams a bye to each of the the 6-bell finals, i.e. one DYR team in the Horsley Cup final and one DYR team in the Arthur Ashby Cup final.

  8. I’m not sure whether a Youth team (I think this would be a better description than DYR – i.e. 18 and under as per qualification for RWNYC) can enter more than one heat. Does “one heat” refer to a District or do you mean either the Horsley or Arthur Ashby competition?
    What is the rationale for reducing the test piece to 120 changes? Is this to encourage more teams to take part, or to get if all over quickly? The only precedent was many years ago at Barlborough when the judge decided the only way to fit the teams in would be to reduce the length of the test piece to 120 changes. Even then I’m not sure it would save that much time (a few minutes per team).

Comments are closed.