Controversial tie keeps Penn Hills boys out of playoffs
Penn Hills and Woodland Hills were tied at zero when their Section 3-AAA game Sept. 21 was halted because of inclement weather.
The tie gave each team a point, but Penn Hills (7-6-2, 4-5-2) argued the game should be resumed at the beginning of the second half, citing a rule listed on the PIAA website.
A win over Woodland Hills — a team Penn Hills beat, 4-0, on Oct. 10 — would've snapped a playoff drought dating to 2004-05.
Instead, the Indians had to beat Fox Chapel (14-1, 10-1) Monday. (The Foxes prevailed, 13-0, bumping Penn Hills from the postseason.)
The information on the PIAA site says, in the event of inclement weather, “Re-start at the point of suspension if less than one half is played. If more than one-half is played and if a winner is determined, it is an official game and the result stands. If a winner cannot be determined, the game is resumed from the point of suspension.”
While that's true and other PIAA teams operate like that, the WPIAL, which is considered a league and a PIAA district, abides by the National Federation of State High School Association rule, which states, “In the event a game must be suspended because of conditions which make it impossible to continue play, the head referee shall declare it an official game if one complete half or more of the game has been played.”
“Because the WPIAL is a league and PIAA district simultaneously,” PIAA assistant executive director Mark Byers wrote in an email, “(the WPIAL has) adopted and announced for all of their schools that all games that are suspended after a half is completed, stands as a completed game.”
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.