Penn Hills tops Plum in WPIBL competition
The Plum varsity boys bowling team tasted defeat for the first time last week with a 7-0 loss at the hands of Penn Hills at Nesbit's Lanes in Plum.
Plum and Penn Hills share the same house, and the match was contested on Penn Hills' lanes.
Junior Dan Yushinski paced the Mustangs with a 656 series, includng a 244 in game one and a 217 in game two.
Senior Matt Kosmack added a 639 series, with games of 221, 223 and 195.
Rounding out the varsity five for Plum were junior Josh Kirchartz (554 series) and seniors Zach Matthews (547) and Dalton Novak (546).
Plum and Penn Hills both stood at 5-1 in the Northeast section after the match.
“It was Penn Hills' day,” Plum assistant coach Jerry Yushinski said.
“We were bowling well, but weren't scoring well. Penn Hills had four guys in the 600s. That's tough to beat.”
The Plum girls lost to Penn Hills, 7-0, and the Mustangs fell to 4-2, one game behind both the Indians and Gateway in the Northeast.
Senior Jocelyn Rubash rolled a 570 series (196-181-193) to lead Plum, while freshman Allie Dick (549), senior Alexa Nicholas (532), senior Heather Kosmack (463) and freshman Talia Pilyih (452) also scored for the Mustangs.
“The girls bowled well, but like the guys, we were getting no breaks,” coach Yushinski said.
Several junior varsity bowlers, coach Yushinski said, had strong efforts against Penn Hills.
Freshman Bryanne Woods rolled games of 144, 166 and 172, while sophomore Bethany LaBertew had games of 171, 151 and 162.
Sophomore Josh Mallick bowled a 185, a 156 and a 172, while freshman Josh Christman scored a 181, a 192 and a 155.
Michael Love is a staff writer with Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412- 388-5825 or at email@example.com.
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.