|
Why on earth would you say that these phrases are grammatically an "or." I have always read them as an "and," because the first is never a violation without the second. And the reference to the unitary "this description" as opposed to "meeting either of the above criteria" I think further solidifies the case.
But forget grammar, just look at A by itself. That is clearly not a violation 99.9% of the time. Anytime I move my arm with relation to my shoulder, I meet the criteria of part A - taken literally. That's the only way we can take A if we have an either-or situation. So every time I move my arm, call a T? No way is it read like this - it is clearly stated that you swing your elbows beyond your normal torso rotation AND you are doing it in an agressive manner - not either one, but both.
If a player does not meet both criteria but strikes a player hard with the elbows in an agressive manner, you can call the flagrant anyway. But if they pivot hard with the elbows staying right in line with the body, you have no call by rule. If they are swinging elbows hard but hardly moving the body, that is regarded as always threatening and a T.
[Edited by Hawks Coach on Jan 15th, 2002 at 05:38 PM]
|