Lubrani, Ragan reach WPIAL AAA golf semis
By The Valley Independent
Published: Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013, 12:01 a.m.
Belle Vernon Area's Michael Lubrani and Elizabeth Forward's Mike Ragan are in.
But BVA's Alex Bates and Zach Cicchini and EF's Pat McCall came up just short.
That was the story at Tuesday's WPIAL Class AAA Division 1 Section 2 Individual Qualifier at Duck Hollow Golf Course.
Lubrani, a freshman, and Ragan, a junior, were among five players to qualify as a result of their rounds. Lubrani shot 38-41-79 to finish third on the par 72 course while Ragan (39-42-81) was fourth.
To qualify for the AAA semis, players had to shoot 82 or better, or finish in the top five.
Meanwhile, Bates (40-45-85) finished two shots out of the running in sixth place, while Cicchini (42-44-86) and McCall (38-48-86) were three shots back as they finished tied for seventh.
EF's Brendan Delbianco (47-44-91) finished 13th, while BVA's Frank Guarinoni (44-50-94) was 15th.
Ringgold's top finisher was Neil Hancock (48-49-97), who tied for 17th. Teammate Chris Essey (43-56-99) tied for 20th.
Uniontown's Luke Wallace and Laurel Highlands' Harrison Laskey tied for first, both shooting 36-37-73 to finish six strokes ahead of Lubrani.
The fifth qualifier is Albert Gallatin's Tanner Kutek (41-42-83).
Lubrani and Ragan will advance to the WPIAL Class AAA semifinals to be held Tuesday at either Youghiogheny Country Club or Hannastown Country Club.
The WPIAL AAA championships will be Oct. 2 at Diamond Run.
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.