Northern region girls lacrosse teams advance in playoffs
When the end of the game came, the score was closer than Pine-Richland girls lacrosse coach Tori Trombetta would have liked, but her squad was on the right side of a 12-10 decision against Upper St. Clair.
The Pine-Richland offense forced the USC defense to work and mounted an effort that yielded an 8-3 score at the half.
A late rally made the game seem closer than it actually was, but the Lady Rams advanced to the WPIAL semifinals against defending champion Peters Township. That game was played Tuesday night with results unavailable as of press time.
“The girls kept their composure and maintained possession,” Trombetta said. “The toughest leads are when you are up four or five goals early. You get comfortable … we just stress each possession, which is the key to winning the game.”
Hannah Christenson scored four goals, Maddy Collins added two goals and two assists. Taylor Thene had a pair of goals and an assist, Tess Drotar had two goals, and Kim Lubic and Sara Caliguiri each had one.
In Division II action, the Shaler Lady Titans and Hampton Lady Talbots advanced to meet each other.
Hampton defeated Ellis School, 7-4, and Shaler throttled Bethel Park, 19-7. These teams met Tuesday, and results were unavailable as of press time.
The winner of that game will meet the winner of the Chartiers Valley-Blackhawk game at 6 p.m. on May 23 at North Hills for the WPIAL Division II championship.
Jerry Clark is a sports editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-779-6979 or 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.