A Technical Flaw ?

[Diablo]

Play 1:  During the preceding down, which ended with Team A advancing beyond the line to gain, B96's helmet comes off without a helmet foul by Team A.  B96 leaves the game for the next down.  After the ready for play on the next down, A77 false starts.  After penalty enforcement for Team A's dead-ball foul, can B96 re-enter the game?

Play 2:  During the preceding down, which ended with Team A scoring a TD, B96's helmet comes off without a helmet foul by Team A.  B96 leaves the game for the next down.  After the ready for play on the try, A77 false starts.  After penalty enforcement for Team A's dead-ball foul, can B96 re-enter the game?  Note, see 2-7-1-Exception, 8-3-2 and 8-3-2-b.
 

[NVFOA_Ump]

Definitely a bit garbled.  Although on the try the down does appears to have "started" (on the RFP) it can't be considered ended since the ball never "becomes dead" because it was never live to begin with.  Probably does need some language tweaking.  Maybe someone can offer the reasoning why the difference in wording in the first place?

[jg-me]

The rule states that the ready period is included for the purpose of penalty enforcement only. I'm quite certain this is to accomodate allowing the ball to be relocated between the hash marks in the case of a Team B DB foul - an option that would not be available during a normal scrimmage down ready period. Since the rule specifically cites the exeption reason I see no support for allowing a player to reenter the game without the down actually being played to the end.

[El Macman]

Y'all are over-thinking. Such a player must sit out a 'down.' The ball has to be put in play and subsequently become dead. Forget the RFP period. After he has left the field, and the ball is declared ready for play, if you don't have a snap/free kick and a subsequent dead-ball, you don't have a down. Until you have a down, he can't come back in.
An interuppted RFP period before a snap or free kick is not a down - it is something that precedes a down. You can consider it an element of a down, if you want, but unless you have all of the elements of a down, i.e., RFP period, snap/free kick, and dead-ball, it isn't a down.

However, the case of a period expiring before the next down has not been addressed.

[El Macman]

AR 3-3-5-II 'seems' to apply here, although it specifically addresses bleeding injuries. For whatever reason, the language specific to an injured player (bleeding or otherwise) being permitted to return to the game following a team T/O or when a perioid ends, was removed from 2009-10 to 2011-12. However, the AR still contains language that, I believe, implies that those conditions stated still allow a player to return to the game following an injury T/O for him.

[jg-me]

There was an editorial change in 2010 that eliminated the option of 'buying' your way back in the game with a timeout. Check Bulletin #1 for 2010  - RR's interp is clear that the player must sit out a down. I do not know why the AR was never adjusted to account for this. The AR seems to have not changed back to at least 2005.

[El Macman]

There was an editorial change in 2010 that eliminated the option of 'buying' your way back in the game with a timeout. Check Bulletin #1 for 2010  - RR's interp is clear that the player must sit out a down. I do not know why the AR was never adjusted to account for this. The AR seems to have not changed back to at least 2005.

Ah, yes. Thanks. Now I recall that this says, "...by interpretation...," but, in fact, it was a bona fide rule change, since the rule language at the time (2009-10 Rules) very explicitly allowed the team to buy his way back with a time out. The 2011-12 Rules removed that explicit langauge. As you say, the AR appears to have not been updated to coordinate.
In the margin of that 2010 Bulletin, I made a note - presumeably while I was at a clinic somewhere - that says that he is OK to return if the period ends.

[bossman72]

AR 3-3-5 II

After being treated for a bleeding or oozing wound, A22 (A.R. 3-3-5-I)
attempts to enter the game before the next snap. RULING: Unless the
period has ended or Team A has taken a timeout, A22 must remain out
of the game for at least one play. In any event, he may return only on the
approval of his team professional medical personnel.

[El Macman]

The AR has obviously not been updated to concur 100% with RR's interpretations. A charged team time-out does not let him return to the game. He's gotta sit out at least one down.

2010 Bulletin 1 (6-19-2010)
1. Timeout for Injured Player.
The editorial change to Rule 3-3-5, “Injury Timeout,” requires that when the officials stop the game clock for an injured player, he must leave the game. The injured player must remain out for at least one down. He may not return to the game without the approval of his team’s professional medical personnel.
Interpretation: The player may not remain in the game by his team taking a charged timeout.


2010 Bulletin 2 (9-10-2010)
11. At the end of a play, the line judge signals to stop the game clock because A25 is slow to stand up and appears to be injured. Team A requests and is granted a charged timeout.
RULING: A25 must leave the game for at least one play. He may not return until his team’s professional medical personnel clear him to play. The charged timeout does not gain Team A the allowance for A25 to return before the next play. (3-3-5 as amended)

[jg-me]

A wise man pointed this out to me recently and after reading the rule with his words in mind it makes sense - While we intuitively consider bleeding players and injured players to be the same, they are not and this is an area where the rules treat them differently. If you send a player out for excessive blood or bleeding, his restriction is not being able to return without medical approval. There is nothing to stop the team from calling a timeout to have this take place and allow that player to return - hence the reason the AR has not been changed (it is specific to bleeding/blood realted issues.
  It would be nice if there was an AR or interp that made the differentiation more obvious but I have not found one yet.

[Diablo]

A wise man pointed this out to me recently and after reading the rule with his words in mind it makes sense - While we intuitively consider bleeding players and injured players to be the same, they are not and this is an area where the rules treat them differently. If you send a player out for excessive blood or bleeding, his restriction is not being able to return without medical approval. There is nothing to stop the team from calling a timeout to have this take place and allow that player to return - hence the reason the AR has not been changed (it is specific to bleeding/blood realted issues.
  It would be nice if there was an AR or interp that made the differentiation more obvious but I have not found one yet.

Strong explanation for the apparent contradiction.

Can an injured player still return to the game if time runs out in the quarter before the next down?

[jg-me]

Unless they want to edit the rule again, an injured player cannot return if a new period starts without remaining out for at least one down to be played.
  And just to be clear, it is possible for a player to be bleeding AND injured. The blood part of the rule is in effect if the only reason you are sending the player out is due to a blood issue.