Monessen loss to Bishop Canevin puts Frazier in WPIAL playoffs
Monessen's loss was Frazier's gain Tuesday.
The Greyhounds lost to Bishop Canevin, 7-1, in the Section 2 A finale for both teams Tuesday.
As a result, Frazier (7-9, 5-5) qualifies for the WPIAL playoffs by finishing the season tied for third with Monessen (6-10, 5-5).
Bishop Canevin (7-4, 7-3) seized control of the rainy contest early by sending nine batters to the plate in the first inning and scoring five runs for a 5-0 lead.
The big hit was a three-run home run by Jim Dlugos.
The Greyhounds were limited to two hits in the game, both by Justice Rawlins.
Monessen avoided a shutout in the fifth inning when Tyler Shash drew a walk and Rawlins belted an RBI double.
“We didn't play very well,” said Monessen coach Bill Matush. “We definitely had our share of mistakes.”
The Greyhounds, who qualified for the WPIAL playoffs for the first time since 1987, are scheduled to play an exhibition game at Avella on Thursday.
Ringgold 10, Uniontown 1
The Rams (4-12) got a monster game from Justin Rich in the non-section romp over Uniontown.
Rich was 5-for-5 at the plate with a home run, triple, three singles and four RBI.
Teammate Mike Cramer had two doubles, and Billy Morris contributed a double and two singles.
Cramer went the distance on the mound, pitching a three-hitter with 11 strikeouts.
The win snapped a 10-game losing streak for the Rams and first-year coach Mike Sikorski.
“It's not the kind of season we wanted, but we played hard,” said Sikorski. “We lost six one-run games and had (unbeaten) South Park on the ropes (in a 5-2 loss Monday).”
Ringgold will close the season at Penn Hills Friday.
Jeff Oliver is a sports editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-684-2666 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.