Share This Page

Perry advances to City League final

| Friday, Oct. 26, 2012, 10:22 p.m.

Just like their Week 3 matchup, Perry and Allderdice came down to the end.

With 1:54 left and first-and-goal at the Perry 3, Allderdice running back Patrick Ferguson fumbled into the end zone. It was recovered by Perry's Shakeem Cox to give top-seeded Perry a 13-7 win in the City League semifinals. The Commodores (7-2, 6-0) will face defending champion USO next week in the championship at Cupples Stadium.

“Never get used to it. We just make it hard on ourselves,” coach Bill Gallagher said of his team's recent trend of defending late leads with defensive dramatics.

Allderdice (3-6, 2-4) forced a quick three-and-out on the opening drive, then drove 72 yards down the field to take an early lead. The Dragons couldn't maintain another solid drive, committing four turnovers. Allderdice had one final prayer in the final seconds, but Bishop Gethers' pass fell short of the end zone. Allderdice outgained Perry, 231-146, in total yardage and held the first-down advantage, 13-8. But it was the crucial downs that Perry owned.

“Every snap counts, no matter if it's the first snap or last snap,” Allderdice coach Jerry Haslett said. “And that last play could have counted.”

Last week, Perry defeated USO, 12-6, to capture the No. 1 seed. The Commodores used a late goal-line stand to secure the win.

“That's a very talented team,” Gallagher said. “Hopefully, it's a good game. We'll do our best to get ready.”

Justin Criado is a freelance writer.

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.