This line of reasoning is in my mind somewhat specious. Imagine that before the game you're going to get the coach and you hear him tell his team this:
We're playing with a temporary fence today. If you end up falling over it and the ball is still in play, grab it immediately and throw it in. Don't climb back over the fence first.
And then a girl asks him why and he answers. Don't worry about it. I don't want you to know what will happen if you do it because if you know it will change what the umpire has to rule.

The dugout case play is clear that legitimate attempts to play the ball that result in the ball becoming dead are one base awards. I'm not going to try and determine if the fielder new she wasn't supposed to field the ball; I'm just going to apply that. (Though frankly I wish I could distinguish it as I think this should be a two base award.)

Since the rule is not actually worded with this specific case in mind, I suspect the number of coaches that have envisioned the play in question AND understand what the proper ruling would be is in the single digits. And I suspect that at LEAST have of the generic umpires out there would miss it upon seeing it for the first time. If you have this magical confluence of one of those coaches AND an umpire that would get it right AND that coach having the foresight to coach this to the players ... fine - give them the single base.

The rule exception was intended to award more than one base to prevent a fielder, deep in a corner, from intentionally carrying the ball out of play on purpose to save a base. It was NOT intended to be used for the case we're describing.

Stretching as far as you just did is rather silly, don't you think?

Wow. That would take one vivid imagination.

The case play also addresses something that is much more likely to happen in high school play than a player falling over a temporary fence and then reaching into LBT to pick up the ball and throw it in. But I feel the case play gets the right point across from a spirit and intent perspective.

I'm probably going to rule the same as if a spectator reached into the field of play and touched a live ball

I'm not sure I could comment on what the intent of the exception is. It clearly intends to prevent the fielder from intentionally taking the ball out of play. But I don't have any idea what the intent of the rules for the play we're talking about is. The case play is quite clear that it should be a one base award. But not because we can be expected to figure the players intent.

Stretching as far as I did was meant to make a point. Sometimes stretching a ruling to it's breaking point is a good way to understand whether it is sensible or not. This is I think one of these cases. I would hope we can all agree that whether a coach tells a player why she's doing something shouldn't determine the result of a play. But in my example using the referenced ruling it would have.

Wouldn't most agree...
 

That "Malicious" (at least in my case) has only been used in sparing case such as a runner bowling over 1B or a catcher? In both these cases a runner has extra time to think about it while running it out. In any organization, let's even use 18U's fielding a ball, thinking about where you are, conceiving in one's mind "Oh, I can know this is a rule breaker" while play is going on....I haven't seen that many savvy players. Most act automatically doing what they "think" is right at the time and leave the coaches to argue it with us.

Out of curiosity, not arguing the base awards (since I've never had this come up); Manny is there sections in USSSA, NFHS that even cover the example given?