[Back In The Saddle]

Yep, both sentences are there. It's not the sentences that are important, so much as the relationship between them. The general guidance for headwear is: "In the case of headwear for medical, cosmetic or religious reasons, the state association may approve upon proper documentation as in 3-5-3 Exception a."

However, they draw a distinction between headwear and "protective equipment". The general guidance for protective equipment is: "Protective equipment must be individually inspected and approved using the criteria outlined." And, in the case of the protector for a broken nose, they give specific guidance: "A protector for a broken nose, even though made of hard material, is permissible if it does not extend so as to endanger others, if it is not sharp and if it has no cutting edges."

So there are really two issues with your conclusion. First, the case specifically classifies this device as protective equipment, and not as headwear. Second, the case specifically rules this piece of protective equipment is legal, subject to inspection by the referee to ensure it meets the specific and general criteria specified.

No approval from the state association is required.

Edited to add: I'm speaking specifically about the broken nose protector here, not about the head protector thingee in the OP.