Lemme refresh your memory....

Casebook play 10.4.5SitA---live ball fight... <b>RULING:</b> <i>A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL foul</i>

Actual Rules Reference
 

The actual reference is from the 2002-3 rules book when the violation for excessively swinging the elbows was changed back from a tech to a violation. Under points of emphasis 4E. on page 68-9 it states:
Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s)
-When there is no contact with an opponenet is now a violation.
-If contact is made, the official must judge the severity of the act and possible even determine intent.
-A player control foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant foul may be called.

Further, in the Comments on the 2002-02 Rules Revisions it states:
Penaly Changed for Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s) 9-13
The penalty for excess swingin of the arms or elbows has been changed back to a violation for a technical foul.....If a player makes contact with an opponent while excessively swinging the arms/elbows, the official still has several options: a player control foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant foul. The specific call should be determined by the severity of the act and player intent (based on official's judgment).

Those are the options "by the book".

Mregor

Just so happened, that the 2002-3 manual is the old one I have lying in my computer desk. No attic diggin involved.

How do you reconcile the direct contradition in the definition of a fight and technical foul with the case book? They're both valid and and clear. There is no ambiguity in the rule. One is probably a misprint. Which? I can't say for sure. I don't think you can either.