HS notes: Section 5-AAA, 4-A leaders fit to be tied
Section 5-AAA, 4-A leaders fit to be tied early on
Rock, paper, scissors, anyone?
Sorting out tiebreakers in Sections 5-AAA and 4-A will be a headache come playoff time.
That's because there have been a total of seven ties, three in Section 5-AAA, four in Section 4-A.
There have been only 17 ties total in section matches thus far in the entire WPIAL.
Second-ranked Canon-McMillan has tied No. 1 Upper St. Clair and No. 5 Peters Township. Moon and Chartiers Valley also have been equal after 80 minutes and a pair of overtime periods.
In Section 4-A, Geibel has tied Bentworth and California, while Washington owns a pair of ties against the Bearcats and Chartiers-Houston.
• Thoughts that Canon-McMillan would be doomed without last year's goalkeeper, James Hathaway, sound pretty silly right about now. By blanking Chartiers Valley, 3-0, over the weekend, sophomore Christian Snatchko earned his seventh shutout of the season. Snatchko, who replaced All-WPIAL keeper Hathaway, won a position battle with senior Alex Hannigan, who has assumed his familiar spot on the Big Macs' back line.
• Before the season began, Quaker Valley coach Gene Klein predicted rival West Allegheny would be the team to beat in Class AA. So far, he has been right on the money. The No. 1 Indians defeated Klein's Quakers, 2-0, last Thursday and remain in first place in Section 5, tied with South Fayette at 5-0-1. West A played to a scoreless tie with the Lions on Saturday.
— Staff reports
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.