contacting fair ball while in foul ball territory
 

This should be simple, but I can't find a clear rule in the Fed book. Any rule set would be good.

R1 on first. B1 hits fly ball destined to be a homerun. F7 is able to jump and knock the ball down in the field of play but then falls over and beyond temporary fence. Fence pops back up to a near vertical position. F7, while standing behind the fence, reaches over and picks up ball that is laying in fair territory and throws it in. Dead ball, but what about the base awards?

Fed dead ball table doesn't address this scenario, unless I'm missing something. 5-1-1i deals with "catch and carry" and 8-4-3k speaks of intentionally carrying, etc.

I'm assuming it's a one or two base award, but where's the reference? What am I missing?

5-1-1i subparagraph "b" states, "If a player's entire foot (no part of the foot is touching in live-ball territory) is beyond the line and touches dead-ball territory at the time she catches, fields, or throws the ball, she has entered dead-ball territory, the ball is dead, no play is allowed."

Seems to me your F7 fielded the ball while in DBT when she picked it up while on the other side of the temporary fence. Since she did not intentionally carry, kick, etc. etc., then I would use 8-4-3i and award one base from the moment she handled the ball.

I somehow missed the word "fields". My fault. One base award. But now after further reading, some 5-1-1 i notes speak of a penalty or lack of, where note b says " no play is allowed". Wording could be more clear.

Manny is correct.

And PLEASE differentiate between DEAD ball territory (as mentioned in your post) and FOUL ball territory (as used in the subject of the post). :) :)

How is fielding not intentional?

She was in dead ball territory, she intentionally reached over and picked up a live ball, making it dead.
I would rule that intentional.

Yeah, but her intent wasn't malicious.

There's a similar situation where a fielder enters a dugout to tag a runner. She certainly does that intentionally, but in the spirit of what the rule really wants to punish, this is not considered intentionally carrying the ball into DBT.

How do you know? Maybe she WAS trying to kill the play!

In the specific exception cited, the defense was attempting to tag a runner, not take the ball out of play.

Agreed about the mis-wording. My fault. I tried to edit the subject title, but wasn't able to.

I doubt it, especially since the OP stated that F7 picked up the ball and then threw it in. Now, if she had picked it up and just held onto it, I would judge otherwise.

Malicious is not the word I would use, but the way I am reading this, she certainly can be preventing a runner from getting more than one base by reaching over the fence and killing the ball rather than taking the time to hop the fence (or let another fielder get the ball and throw it in.

Let's say the B/R has past 2nd when the fielder recovers and reaches over the fence for the ball. Ruling this as a catch and carry would hold her at 3rd base instead of scoring (which would probably be the outcome if the fielder had to hop back over the fence or if F8 had to get the ball.

Perhaps. Or maybe the BR would have been gunned at home for an out. It seems the one-base award would be the only equitable thing here.

Intentionally is, and has been for at least 20 years, been interpreted to mean that the player's actions were taken for the purpose of creating a dead ball. The case play is when the catcher runs after a batter-runner on an uncaught third strike and enters the dugout to tag the batter-runner (not realizing that she is out for going into the dugout). Yes, she intentionally ran into the dugout. No, she did not intentionally enter the dugout for creating a dead ball. Use common sense when interpreting intent. People say you can't judge intent. I say that's bullshit as normal every day people do it thousands of times a day on jury duty.

I think this answered all the questions, especially given the OP saying "picks up ball that is laying in fair territory and throws it in".

There is a difference between intentionally doing something (almost everything we do) and doing something with intent to violate a rule or in a rule sense.

It is similar to the INT wording of active, as oppose to intentional. Several ENGLISH WORDS cause confusion with RULE WORDS; e.g., appeal, interfere, intentional, foul tip, protest, etc. and we should not let that affect a discussion or more importantly a ruling.

Yeah, that's what I meant when I used the word "malicious", which I agree was a poor choice. It sounded better than saying, "Yeah, but her intent wasn't intentional." :p

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?