Error in AR 3-3-5 II ??

[fblrush]

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.

Wasn't "Unless the period has ended or Team A has taken a timeout" removed last year?

[copedaddy]

Perhaps a "difference" between a bleeding player and an injured one?

[Hursk]

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.

Wasn't "Unless the period has ended or Team A has taken a timeout" removed last year?

That was my recollection...that you couldn't "buy" your way back in with a TO... I'm assuming the reference to AR3-3-5-I is that R had stopped the clock and sent the bleeder to the sideline;  Play 1 Bulletin 1 from 2010 is:  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.

But it looks like AR 3-3-5 II was updated this year to include "in any event, he may return only on the approval of his team professional medical personnel" ... do we conclude that they just forgot to eliminate the "unless the period ended or A has taken a TO" language to conform to the 2010 Bulletin, or that RR thought better of it and intentionally left that language in the AR this year, reversing the Bulletin sub silentio?

[jg-me]

It appears that we are to differentiate between sending an injured player out versus sending a player out due to a blood/bleeding issue. See 3-3-5-a-1 and 3-3-5-a-4.

[Hursk]

It appears that we are to differentiate between sending an injured player out versus sending a player out due to a blood/bleeding issue. See 3-3-5-a-1 and 3-3-5-a-4.

Understood, but my confusion came in 3-5-a. preface "In the event of an injured player" with 1 ("injured") and 4 ("bloody or bleeding") still being subcategories under "a." 
But (assuming no formal substitution) I suppose it makes sense to treat bloody guys who can still function fine with a quick patch-up differently from players who cannot function fine due some physical impact... bloody guys can buy their way back with a TO or quarter change, otherwise injured guys cannot.
Thanks.

[Diablo]

In the 2009-10 rule book, 3-3-5-a-2 reads, "The player(s) may remain in the game if his team is charged a
timeout in the interval between downs or the period ends."  That statement has been removed from all of 3-3-5 in the 2011-12 rule book.

However, both 3-3-5-a-2 & 4 in the 2011-12 book state that that the injured/blood-soaked player may not return without approval from medical personnel.  That is consistent with the editorial addition of "In any event, he may return only on the approval of his team professional medical personnel." to this year's AR 3-3-5-II.

I'm betting they inadvertently failed to delete the first sentence in the Ruling for 2011-12 AR 3-3-5-II.

[Hursk]

I'm betting they inadvertently failed to delete the first sentence in the Ruling for 2011-12 AR 3-3-5-II.
[/quote]

That would certainly eliminate the strain that we have to make to justify the distinction noted.

[Andrew McCarthy]

Has anyone gotten an answer on if a period ending or a TO gets the injured player back in?

Seems silly to have someone injured on the last play of the half have to sit out the first play of the third quarter.

[Magician]

I have always assumed the 1 down removal after an injury was to avoid a player faking an injury to stop the clock.  If you do that you are going to lose the player for a down.  If you take a time out or the period ends that eliminates the possibility of faking an injury to get a time out.

If that is correct, it's hard to fake blood (unless you are in the movies).  I can see why there would be a difference.

[JasonTX]

I have always assumed the 1 down removal after an injury was to avoid a player faking an injury to stop the clock.  If you do that you are going to lose the player for a down.  If you take a time out or the period ends that eliminates the possibility of faking an injury to get a time out.

If that is correct, it's hard to fake blood (unless you are in the movies).  I can see why there would be a difference.

The intent of the rule is so that they will actually give a truly injured player some medical attention.  The thought is that if he can't return for 1 down, then maybe they will look at him.  Too many times in the past the injured player was just thrown back in there after the timeout without having been properly looked over.