Greensburg Salem hopes to finish off West Allegheny in semifinals
If Greensburg Salem softball coach Jody Morgan had her way, she would have preferred to finish Wednesday's WPIAL Class AAA semifinal game against West Allegheny.
As thunder roared above California (Pa.) University's Lilley Field, Morgan glanced up to the sky with disgust.
Top-seeded Greensburg Salem was leading No. 12 seed West Allegheny, 2-0, when lightning delayed the game in top of the fifth inning at 6:20 p.m.
By 7:15 p.m., a downpour of rain forced WPIAL officials to suspend the game until 2 p.m. Thursday, at California.
The storm also wiped out the Class AAAA semifinal between No. 1 Canon-McMillan (19-1) and No. 4 Hempfield (17-5), which will follow the conclusion of the Class AAA game at 4 p.m.
“We want to play,” Morgan said.
“We wanted to finish it. But I'm glad we're up at this point instead of being down.”
Greensburg Salem jumped out to a 2-0 lead in the top of the third inning when Taylor Mehan smacked a two-run double off the left-field fence. It came just inches shy of being a three-run home run.
The double scored Karly Mellinger, who bunted for a hit, and Kellie Hutchinson, who reached on a fielder's choice.
“It was important to get on top of this team, especially being the visitor,” Morgan said.
West Allegheny only had one hit off Greensburg Salem starter Jayne Oberdorf, a one-out double by opposing pitcher Brianna Lach. Oberdorf had five strikeouts and no walks in the first four innings.
Lach got out of a bases-loaded jam in the fourth inning when Mellinger's line drive was snagged by first baseman Brooke Bagnell.
“I'm not sure if this delay is good or bad,” West Allegheny coach Mindi McFate said. “We'll find out. You never know how girls will respond.”
Paul Schofield is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org or via Twitter @Schofield_Trib.
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.