PIAA quarterfinals roundup: Deer Lakes falls short to Philipsburg-Osceola
At Bedford High School, District 6 champion Philipsburg-Osceola (23-1) scored all of its runs in the first inning and downed WPIAL runner-up Deer Lakes, 3-1, in a PIAA Class AA quarterfinal game that was delayed two days by rain.
P-O advanced to face Riverside (21-0) in the semifinals Monday at a time and site to be determined.
Deer Lakes (19-2) scored in the third inning when senior shortstop Becca Babincak tripled and sophomore second baseman Katie Gozzard singled.
Ambridge 5, Greencastle-Antrim 3 — Hannah Smith smacked four hits and earned the victory as Ambridge won a PIAA Class AAA quarterfinal game at Bedford. The Bridgers (18-4) will play Fort LeBoeuf in the semifinals Monday at a time and site to be determined.
Neshannock 6, Claysburg-Kimmel 1 — Madison Shaffer earned the victory and Allie Fischer doubled, as WPIAL champion Neshannock (20-2) won a PIAA Class A quarterfinal game at Everett High School.
The Lancers will play Southern Huntingdon in the semifinals Monday at a time and site to be determined.
Southern Huntingdon 6, Carmichaels 2 — Erica Burns had three hits and struck out six, but WPIAL runner-up Carmichaels (22-4) lost in the PIAA Class A quarterfinals at Everett High School.
Beaver 1, Mount Union 0 — Ben Herstine singled in Austin Logan in the third inning as Beaver won a PIAA Class AA quarterfinal game at Somerset. WPIAL champion Beaver (19-3) will play Quaker Valley in a rematch of the WPIAL title game at noon Monday at Pullman Park in Butler.
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.