Plum boys cross country team takes second at section championship meet
The Plum varsity boys cross country team finished as runner-up to Fox Chapel at Tuesday's Section 4-AAA championship meet at Pittsburgh's Schenley Park.
The Mustangs also ran against Pittsburgh Central Catholic, Kiski Area, Gateway, Penn Hills, Woodland Hills, Allderdice and Highlands and finished the day 7-1.
Plum earned second with a 24-32 victory over Pittsburgh Central Catholic.
Fox Chapel senior twins Ethan and Colin Martin took the top two spots, but Plum sophomore Jake Susalla and Mustangs senior Alan Yocca were right behind them in third and fourth, respectively.
Susalla, who battled back from injury, finished Tuesday's race in a time of 16:38, four seconds behind both Martin runners.
Yocca recorded a time of 16:38.
In head-to-head scoring, Fox Chapel earned the first, second, fifth, seventh and eighth spots for a total of 23 points, while Plum picked up spots three, four, six, nine and 12 for 34 points.
Rounding out the top five for Plum were seniors Eddie Amori (eighth overall, 16:49) and Andy Marzullo (15th, 17:44) and junior Dan Bergless (27th, 18:24).
The Plum girls recorded a 3-5 record with wins over Penn Hills (15-50), Woodland Hills (15-50) and Highlands (15-50).
Gateway edged the Mustangs, 27-30.
Sophomore first-year cross country runner Rachel Valotta paced the Plum girls with an 11th-place finish in a time of 21:06.
The Plum varsity teams return to action Saturday at 9 a.m. at the Grove City Invitational.
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.