Kiski Area wrestling team falls short, loses to N. Allegheny
North Allegheny ended Kiski Area's hopes of returning to the PIAA team tournament by winning the WPIAL team tournament third-place match, 44-20, on Saturday at Chartiers Valley.
“The four teams down here were all quality teams and can all do well, but only three were going to make it to states,” Kiski Area coach Chuck Tursky said. “They won some of the close ones, and it snowballed from there.
“They're a good team, and they came after us and they got it done.”
North Allegheny (16-3) raced to an 11-0 lead, thanks to close wins by Blynn Shideler (126) and Drew Landefeld (132) and a technical fall by Jesse Rodgers (138).
Kiski Area (16-3) tied the match at 11 when Cole Landowski (145) posted a technical fall and decisions by Shawn McGowan (152) and Kyle Skelly (160).
But pins by Clay Byerly (170) and Alex DeCiantis (182) gave North Allegheny a cushion. Zach Smith rallied to defeat Tyler Worthing, 5-4, at 195 pounds to push the Tigers lead to 26-11.
Matt McCutcheon (220) won a decision, and Shane Kuhn (285) got a pin for Kiski Area. NA closed with two pins and a forfeit. The win was the 150th of McCutcheon's career, vaulting him past school-record holder Tyler Oravec, a 2006 grad who won 149 times.
“I felt a huge swing in this match was Clay Byerly's pin at 170,” North Allegheny coach Jamie Kyriazis said. “On paper, it was a toss-up. Kiski won the last time the two wrestled at Manheim. To get a pin charged the team.
“There were some close ones early. The tight ones got us going.”
Paul Schofield is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.