ShareThis Page

Plum wrestlers edge North Hills in Section 3-AAA thriller on complicated criterion

| Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014, 11:03 p.m.
Erica Dietz | Valley News Dispatch
Plum's Stephen Turchick holds down North Hills' Eli Swain during the 285-pound match at Plum O'Block Junior High School in Plum on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014.
Erica Dietz | Valley News Dispatch
Plum's Tony Dininno places a hold on North Hills' John MacPherson during the 106-pound match at Plum O'Block Junior High School in Plum on Wednesday, January 8, 2014.

Before the outcome of Wednesday night's wrestling match between Plum and North Hills became a matter of complicated tiebreaker criteria, it hinged on a simple-to-grasp mission for Mustangs senior heavyweight Stephen Turchick.

Turchick's task: Pin North Hills senior Eli Swain.

He needed almost two and half periods to complete his mission, but Turchick managed to turn Swain on his back in the second-to-last bout of the night and secured a pin that provided Plum the final six points in its Section 3-AAA subsection B victory, which, with the score tied at 36 and all 14 weight classes complete, came down to criterion H, the rulebook's eighth tiebreaker for dual meets.

“I was really nervous, especially watching all the matches before me,” said Turchick, who improved to 18-2 with 11 pins. “I knew it had to get done. I tried snapping him down, and it didn't work. I tried taking him down, and I only got him once. The third period, I kind of had a heavyweight mentality and laid on him, and it ended up working out.”

Criteria H centered on these facts: Plum and North Hills (5-4, 3-1) each scored first in six bouts, but the Mustangs accumulated 12 points in bouts in which they scored first, and the Indians had 11 points.

“I thought maybe our heavyweight could get out from bottom one more time, but Turchick, he's the one that changed everything,” North Hills coach Jose Martinez said. “Once he pinned our guy, I knew it was going to criteria.”

The one-point difference in first points scored stemmed from the 220-pound bout in which North Hills senior Mike Bonsmann opened scoring with a second-period escape.

Three times in the match, the wrestler who scored first ultimately lost the bout. Early offense paid off for North Hills' David Tuzikow (152), who lost to Zach Martin, 9-7, in overtime. On the flipside, first-period takedowns mattered for Plum's Nick Meyers (138), who lost by pinfall to David Badamo, and for Tony Dininno (106), who dropped the match's final bout, 5-4, to John MacPherson.

MacPherson, a freshman, scored a takedown with 51 seconds left in the third period to take the lead in his win, which created the need for the match-deciding tiebreakers.

North Hills finished with five pins, while Plum had three, so the Indians could've won the match on a simpler criterion had they not also forfeited the 120- and 126-pound weight classes — the rulebook's fifth tiebreaker awards a match to the team with more points accumulated through falls, forfeits, defaults and disqualifications.

“When you first look at a lineup and you see that they have spaces, you think, ‘Well, I'm getting 12 points,' ” Plum coach Mike Supak said. “But when you know the quality of wrestlers they have and where they're at, we knew it'd definitely be a tough matchup for us.”

Martinez believed the forfeits might actually become a slight advantage for North Hills.

“I knew that with them getting two forfeits, we might get the edge on first (points),” Martinez said, “because then they couldn't score.”

Bill West is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @BWest_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.