Usually, when runners are conducting a head first slide, their arms are extended trying to get to the plate faster and score. The UGA base runner cocked his left elbow (the one closest to the plate) and led with it at Long's ankle. No reason to do that unless you're trying to injure Long.
This brings up an interesting point - the ump said half way thru this fiasco that "the out call on the field was confirmed, and that there was no malicious intent." He went on to add that actions after the play were under review.
Read through the Collision Rules for College Baseball (Starts on page 86 - chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://macumpires.org/pdf/2023-24-ncaa-baseball-rules.pdf )
Within that rule: "3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if they can reach the base without colliding". The runner did not do this.
The Malicious Intent comment by the Ump was not about Long - it was about the runner. They also did not rule that it was unavoidable contact. So, the call on the field that likely never got fully explained was that the runner was out by rule by because he initiated contact and broke the collision rule.
The rules go on further to note:
"Note: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with their hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of the Collision Rule 8-7, or otherwise initiated a collision that could have been avoided. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a headfirst slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if their body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable collision in violation of the Collision Rule."
I'm not so sure they were going to toss Long - and there is no indication that they had prior to the review by Birmingham. They were considering Malicious Intent against the runner - which by rule is an ejection - hence the comment by the Umpire mid-review. I think that this is what was explained to Johnson and he asked for the review of Malicious Intent and the tossing of his player - and it was not a review of Long blocking the plate.
