Daniel Connolly, who wrote this, seems to be confused (either substantively or terminologically) about Brady's redshirting and eligibility, primarily because of the dependent clause I've bolded. (Similarly, Maggie Vanoni was outright wrong in what she wrote on January 8 about Malou-Mamel's ability to redshirt this season.)
Let me try to explain the rules another way, focusing on the 5-year window.
Brady is already eligible for a redshirt for the season she sat out during her first calendar year. Sure, if she suffered a medically documented, season-ending injury in UConn's first 10 games of this season, she could keep sitting out and put in a claim for a medical redshirt for this season, which is her fourth calendar year.
The NCAA would say: Okay, Ice, the yearly tally in your 5-year window is:
Year 1: redshirt
Year 2: play
Year 3: play
Year 4: redshirt
Year 5: eligible to play
After that, it's bye-bye, Ice. Your 5-year window is closed.
However, the Year 5 eligibility entry remains exactly the same if Year 4 of the tally says play instead of redshirt. And the 5-year window closes at the same time no matter whether Year 4 is play or redshirt. Ice's eligibility to play in Year 5 is not affected by whether she plays again in (this) Year 4 or not. She's entitled to play 4 seasons within 5 calendar years.
If Daniel Connolly is suggesting that Ice must sit out the rest of this season to play next season, he is wrong. At a minimum, he is confusing readers.