South Allegheny falls to South Park despite valiant effort
By David Whipkey
Published: Saturday, Sept. 21, 2013, 1:48 a.m.
It looked like Pat Monroe's South Allegheny squad would finally scale the mountain and earn a hard-fought win. But the harder they pushed the boulder up hill, the heavier it became.
The Gladiators could not overcome three costly turnovers and two penalties that negated two scores in Friday night's 14-3 Homecoming loss to South Park. South Allegheny fell to 0-4 overall, while the visiting Eagles squared their record at 2-2.
“South Park is a complete football team,” Monroe said. “ We fought them. I am proud of our guys. We've got seven guys up front that did not play last year.”
The Gladiators went toe-to-toe with a bigger, stronger football team all evening long and at times, appeared to carry the physicality to the Eagles. But mistakes, especially on offense, cost the Glads dearly.
After an exchange of punts, South Park struck first. Eagles quarterback Nick Scholle hit receiver Mike McLaughlin, who slid past Glads cornerback DaVonte Johnson and into the end zone for a spectacular 32 yard touchdown. Ryan Mino's point after was good, giving the Eagles a 7-0 lead late in the first.
South Park extended its lead to two scores late in the second quarter. Scholle hit Greg Pantuso for a 59-yard play on a screen pass. Two plays later, Scholle scrambled for the end zone but fumbled. However, Eagles offensive lineman Stefan Savic hustled and recovered the ball in the end zone, giving South Park a 14-3 lead.
David Whipkey is a freelance writer.
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.