High school roundup: Southmoreland girls advance in tournament
Julea Claycomb and Brooke Cottem scored 11 and 10 points, respectively, to lead Southmoreland (1-8) to a 42-36 victory over Northgate in the Geibel Tournament on Thursday.
Tiana Morgan led Northgate (1-7) with 10 points.
The Scotties will face Geibel in the consolation game at 6 p.m. Friday.
Jefferson-Morgan 51, Geibel 31 — Allie Bogden led all scorers with 17 points to guide Jefferson-Morgan (3-4) to victory in the Geibel Christmas Tournament. Geibel (1-6) was led by Peyton McIntyre's 14 points, while Ashley Fattis added 12 points for Jefferson-Morgan.
Mt. Pleasant 40, North Hills 26 — Jordan Toohey led all scorers with 12 points to lead Mt. Pleasant (4-3) to a victory over North Hills (3-6) in the New Castle Tournament. Elaina Fearer added 11 points in the win. The Vikings will play New Castle Friday in the championship at 4:30 p.m.
Carmichaels 49, Frazier 29 — In the Laurel Highlands Tournament, Hannah Kline scored 15 points, but Frazier (3-2) fell short. The Commodores will play Connellsville at 9:15 p.m. Friday in the round-robin tournament.
Mt. Pleasant 74, Meyersdale 32 — Tyler Mellors scored 17 points to lead Mt. Pleasant (4-4) a victory over Meyersdale in the North Star Tournament. Mitch Matlas and Cody Monroe scored 15 and 12 points, respectively, for Mt. Pleasant.
Charleroi 77, Southmoreland 56 — Zac Black scored 15 points for Southmoreland (0-8), but it wasn't enough in a loss to Charleroi (4-2) in the Charleroi Holiday Classic. Charleroi's Jim Diaz led all scorers with 24 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 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.