Share This Page

Local roundup: Mt. Pleasant takes 3rd at section tournament

| Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, 11:40 p.m.

Members of the Mt. Pleasant wrestling team had a tough task Wednesday night after falling to Jefferson-Morgan in the semifinals of the Section 2-AA team tournament.

Just minutes after dropping a 41-30 decision, the Vikings had to step back on the mat for the section's consolation bout against Yough, a team that had just suffered its second loss of the season.

Thanks to pins by Eli Holt (195 pounds) and Josh Lind (220) and major decision victories by Andy Yoder (138) and Justin Overly (182), the Vikings scored a 35-27 decision over Yough (14-3). Also for Mt. Pleasant (9-3), Mike Novak (126) won by forfeit, and Austin Mears (145), Bobby Long (152) and Ethan Charles (160) earned decisions.

Against Jefferson-Morgan, Novak (120) and Holt (195) had pins.

Jefferson-Morgan defeated Bentworth, 43-22, in the finals to win the Section 2 title.

Boys basketball

Frazier 73, Geibel 63 — Four players were in double figures as Frazier (4-10) won a nonsection contest.

Charles Manack scored 22 and was aided by Roger Cline (14), Paul Pellick (12) and Vincent Bucci (11).

Aaron Agostoni had 23 points for Geibel (2-12).

Girls basketball

Frazier 51, California 37 — Lauren Timko scored 16 points to lead Frazier (8-7) to a nonsection win. Courtnee McMasters had 17 points for California (12-4).

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.