Daily News roundup: Norwin wins to move ahead in Section 2-AAAA
Steve Socrates allowed two hits over six innings to lift Norwin (7-5, 6-3) to a 10-0 victory over Albert Gallatin.
Casey Rebosky went 3 for 4 with a double and 3 RBI to help the Knights move a half-game ahead of idle Latrobe (6-5, 5-3) in the Section 2-AAAA standings. Norwin will visit the Wildcats at 4:15 p.m. Monday at Legion Keener Field.
Jeannette 16, South Allegheny 1 (4 inn.) — Things started off well for the Gladiators as they opened the scoring in the top of the first, but that was as good as it got as the Jayhawks rolled to an easy win.
South Allegheny (3-10, 1-8) has lost by at least 10 runs in six of its 10 losses.
Serra Catholic 25, Geibel 0 (3 inn.) — Wayne Hydak hit a grand slam as part of a 22-run first inning to help the Eagles win their eighth consecutive game.
Parker Janosko went 4 for 4 with a double as Serra Catholic (12-1, 7-0) moved to within one win of locking up a WPIAL Class A playoff berth and two of a share of the Section 2 title.
Serra Catholic 14, Mapletown 2 (5 inn.) — Nicole Jezerski got a rare start and chipped in three RBI to help the Eagles come away with an easy win over the Maples.
Mapletown has been 10-runned in 12 of its 13 losses.
Serra Catholic (9-4, 8-4) locked up a berth in the WPIAL Class A playoffs with the victory and will guarantee third place all to itself with a win in one of its final two games or a Monessen loss.
Norwin 9, Mt. Pleasant 4 — Nikki Ingel had four hits, and Maddy Wensel doubled twice as Norwin (7-5) came away with a nonsection win against the Vikings.
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.