I see 3 scenarios here and under current wording none of them is technically wrong. The rule in place worked fantastic and was easy to explain before the TDA elected to go back to last card vs first card rule to be eligible to play the hand.
We have BillM16's interpretation, then Max D's interpretation, then we have what the rule states (which is ambiguous) and finally you have Boris's interpretation. So which is best?
We can start first with throwing out the rule as written. It allows for ambiguity, misinterpretation, favoritism and exceptions in light of the spineless rule reversal.
Boris's interpretation - View the player as being on a "technical penalty". How so? The player is not on a penalty and is simply absent from the table when the misdeal occurs and therefore you wish to penalize him after he returns? And kill his hand? This is not acceptable.
Max D's interpretation - The last card is dealt when the misdeal occurs. Therefore, complete re-deal of the hand, dealing in the absent player as it was when the misdeal occurred and then kill that players hand before action begins.
This can't work for two reasons - First as above, you are penalizing the player for returning in time for a fresh deal and secondly, and most importantly, the main purpose of the last card dealt rule is give every player every possible opportunity to play their hand. The player paid money, not simple to enter a tournament, but to play hands. As many possible hands as they can play. They not only paid a tournament entry to go towards the prize pool, but they also paid a fee to be able to play the maximum hands possible. The same as a time game in live.
Suppose the player was walking back towards his table, talking to his friend or walking the room searching for Pokemons but was timing his return to be just in time for the last card to reach the button, but alas there's a misdeal so the dealer has to begin reshuffling. Are you telling me, that your response to that player as he sits down to take his hand after he watches the reshuffling of the cards is that, "Sorry sir, you were absent when the misdeal happened" so you can't play?
And if so, then you must word the last card/eligible player rule in such a fashion, that there must be an exception to the rule and that it truly is not last card dealt rule, BECAUSE the last card dealt rule is intended and written in such a fashion as that it pertains to all players receiving complete hands.
Secondly, this suggestion also allows for purposeful misdeals and moreover, simple mistakes the lead to the exclusion of the player being eligible to play the hand. Per Max D's example, some misdeals hand with the first two cards off. So are we to declare a misdeal and then re-deal the hand in same fashion as it began and then kill the absent players hand even though he has returned to the table before the last card was dealt on the re-deal? Again, not acceptable. So IMO, this interpretation is out.
BillM16's interpretation - Because the misdeal occurred before the last card was dealt, the player may be eligible to play the hand because the last card was never dealt. A little wordy and redundant explanation, but YES. This is simple and easy to understand. There are no exceptions. Last card dealt still means, last card dealt, meaning everyone has complete hands. If that's the wording that needs to be introduced, then let's do it.
In the end, there's no confrontation, the player is happy, the staff is happy and the venue is happy. There's a saying at the WSOP that was use and that phrase is, "We are not in the business of killing hands".