[bard]

(I'm sorry, this got long.)

One more comment from me before I let this thread mercifully run its course! Grammatically, 4-19-5 is a good example:

"A technical foul is:
a. A foul by a nonplayer.
b. A noncontact foul by a player.
c. etc...

This could also be read, "A technical foul is a foul by a nonplayer. AND/OR, a technical is a noncontact foul by a player. AND/OR, a technical is ..."

Perhaps we just need to ignore the conjunction between the independent phrases and acknowledge that the "a," "b," and "c" items are not criteria that must ALL be met in order for there to be a technical. (I.E. A technical foul cannot be both a foul by a nonplayer and a noncontact foul by a player at the SAME time.) Either 'a' or 'b' or 'c' are sufficient to meet the criteria for a technical foul in a particular situation. (Sorry for using 'or' again. It's early and I've had no coffee...)

So in the context of swinging elbows, 4-24-8 is written in the same manner. Either 'a' or 'b' are sufficient to call a T. You don't have to meet both.

"Anytime I move my arm with relation to my shoulder, I meet the criteria of part A - taken literally" Not in my book, because you're not "swinging." You're just moving.

"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." I don't think so. I think it is just as clear in the other direction! ;-) But since I don't want to volunteer to rewrite the whole darn book, I'll just stop here! Thanks for the discussion!