Burrell wins showdown with Springdale
A matchup of two of the A-K Valley's top boys soccer teams didn't disappoint Saturday as Burrell edged Springdale, 2-1, in a nonsection game that had a playoff feel.
Tom Spagnolo scored on a corner kick by Corey Mazary midway through the second half, and Class AA No. 5 Burrell (12-0-1) edged Class A No. 4 Springdale (11-2).
Springdale took a 1-0 lead on a goal by Will Noble early in the second half. But Burrell's Andrew Stewart scored the equalizer.
“Springdale is a great team,” Burrell coach T.J. Trozzi said. “They will do well in the playoffs. This was a good game to get us ready for the postseason.”
Kiski Area 2, Penn-Trafford 0 — Brandon Smail's four-save shutout helped the Cavaliers (9-2-2, 7-1-1) keep pace with Section 1-AAA leader Franklin Regional (10-1-2, 8-1-1).
Matt Dziadosz registered a goal and an assist for Kiski Area. He is tied with Dakota Lange — who assisted on Dziadosz's goal — for the team lead in both scoring categories with six goals and five assists.
Plum 7, McKeesport 0 — Shane Rings scored three goals and was one of five players to find the net for Plum (6-4-2) in a nonsection victory over the Tigers (1-12).
Plum 3, Woodland Hills 0 — Aaliyah Odom scored twice and assisted on a goal by Nicolette Casarcia as Plum (7-5-2, 5-3-2) won a Section 3-AAA game over Woodland Hills (2-11, 0-11).
Girls cross country
Riverview takes fourth — Riverview was the top Class A finisher at the 14-team Grove City Invitational. Freshman Molly Kennedy took fourth overall (20:39).
Riverview's top seven girls all are underclassmen.
Plum finished third.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.