Daily News roundup: EF keeps pace in postseason chase
By Staff Reports
Published: Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 11:15 p.m.
Elizabeth Forward stayed in a three-way tie for second place in the Section 4-AAA baseball playoff race with a 4-3 victory over Ringgold.
Mark Adams threw a complete game and struck out eight to keep the Rams at bay, while Jake Terrick singled three times to spark the Warriors' offensive attack.
Elizabeth Forward (12-5, 6-4) has two section games remaining, including a showdown with Thomas Jefferson on Friday.
Thomas Jefferson 12, Carrick 2 (5 inn.) — Joe McHughy doubled and tripled, Colton Booher had three singles, and the Jaguars kept pace with the rest of the contenders in the race for the final two playoff spots out of Section 4-AAA.
Yough 4, Laurel Highlands 2 — Cougars shortstop Brad Bisko made a diving play and threw out a runner at first with the tying runs in scoring position to end the game. Yough clinched a WPIAL Class AAA playoff berth for the first time since 2007.
Serra Catholic 15, Clairton 0 (3 inn.) — Brandon Coddington pitched a no-hitter and had three hits, as Serra Catholic (14-1, 9-0) continued its dominance in section play.
Norwin 7, Ligonier Valley 6 (8 inn.) — The Knights scored four runs in the bottom of the eighth for a come-from-behind victory over District 6 Ligonier Valley. Nikki Ingel and Maddy Wensel each had four hits for Norwin to help Hannah O'Block win her first game of the season.
Show commenting policy
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 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.