Share This Page

Local roundup: Glover, West Shamokin fall short in scoring duel

| Saturday, Feb. 16, 2013, 12:12 a.m.

A scoring duel broke out in the WPIAL Class AA preliminary-round girls playoff game between West Shamokin and Neshannock on Friday night at Highlands.

Jill Glover and Madison McHale went head-to-head in the points total, and McHale came out on top, as did her team.

Neshannock (12-11) used a third-quarter rally to pull out a 47-38 win over West Shamokin (12-11), which led by five at halftime.

McHale made nine of 10 free throws during a 28-point performance for the Lady Lancers, who outscored West Shamokin, 13-2, in the third quarter. No other Neshannock player had more than five points.

Glover sank three 3-pointers and finished with 26 points for West Shamokin. Lizzy Cornish followed with six points.

West Shamokin was making just its second playoff appearance in the program's history.

Washington 36, Ford City 32 — Up, 16-11, at halftime in the Class AA preliminary-round game, Ford City (14-9) was outscored by Washington, 16-5, in the third quarter in the loss.

Christina Davis scored 12 points and Allyson Cujas added 11 to lead the Lady Sabers.

Maya and Tajah Gordon finished with 13 and 12 points, respectively, for Washington (13-10).

Boys basketball

Mapletown 48, Leechburg 29 — Down by six entering the fourth quarter, Leechburg (8-13) faded in the Class A preliminary-round loss.

Kevin Ridgley made four 3-pointers and had a game-high 22 points for Mapletown (7-16).

Chris Swank led the Blue Devils with 15 points.

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.