Ringgold wrestlers edge USC
TribLIVE Sports Videos
Ringgold moved on to the WPIAL wrestling team playoffs Wednesday by beating host Upper St. Clair, 27-25, in a fifth-place consolation match for Section 2 AAA.
The Rams trailed 25-24 going into the final match of the night before Brandon Heinzelman (152 pounds) won a 12-5 decision to seal the win for Ringgold.
“That was a huge win for him on several counts,” said Ringgold coach Bob Bove. “Not only did it win us the match, but he was a little banged up and I actually didn't want to use him.
“Brandon had an elbow injury and he said he wanted to go. He sucked it up and pulled out the win for the team.”
The Rams (7-8) got a major decision from Kenny Tarpley (132) and decisions from Tyus Bundy (106), Doug Gudenburr (120), Devin Fallenstein (170) and Taylor Bass (Hvy).
Tarpley upped his record to 25-2 on the season as he inches closer to his 100th career win.
Fallenstein is 21-1.
“I didn't expect this match to be this close, but I knew it would be a close match,” Bove said. “We came out like a team that hadn't done anything for two days. We were sluggish. But I'm glad we did enough to pull it out.”
Ringgold will likely wrestle in a pig-tail match Monday against an opponent to be determined. If the Rams win, they will advance to the team tournament.
Section 2 AA
At Derry, Bentworth defeated Yough, 45-38, in the consolation match to advance to the WPIAL team tournament.
The action started with Derry knocking off Bentworth, 43-30, and Yough losing to Jefferson-Morgan, 49-21.
Jeff-Morgan beat Derry in the championship, 54-30.
Show commenting policy
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 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.