ShareThis Page
Other High School Sports

Leader Times roundup: Freeport's Clawson fires low-round 80 at WPIAL qualifier

| Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013, 11:18 p.m.

Freeport's girl golfer is headed back to WPIALs.

Sophomore Audrey Clawson shot a 6-over-par 80 to card the low score of the day in the WPIAL Section 1-AA qualifier at Latrobe Elks Golf Club on Wednesday. It will be the second trip to WPIALs for Clawson, a state qualifier last year.

She will be joined at the WPIAL championships by Derry's Sydney Syster (83), Jefferson-Morgan's Gillian Alexander (84), Greensburg Central Catholic's Olivia Zambruno (85) and Frazier's Annika Erdely (103).

Kittanning's Kayly Lazaroff had the next lowest score for an Armstrong County golfer with a 121.

Boys golf

Kittanning 213, West Shamokin 237, Leechburg 280 Noah Kunst shot a 40, and Noah Spang and Nick Long both shot 42 to give Kittanning (8-1, 7-0) a pair of Section 1-AA wins in a three-team match at Kittanning Country Club.

Leechburg's Matt Barto shot a 39 for the low round of the day, while Cory Egley and Ben Vicini each shot 44 for West Shamokin to earn a win over the Blue Devils.

Girls soccer

Freeport 4, Burrell 3 (OT) — Megan Manke scored with 2:15 left in overtime to lift Freeport (4-4-0, 3-2-0) to a Section 2-AA victory over Burrell (4-4-0, 2-3-0).

Erika Jack scored twice and Natalie Martin had a goal for the Yellowjackets. Mayson Kiser made 10 saves for Freeport, while Burrell goalie Bailey Klems stopped seven shots.

The teams were scoreless at halftime.

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.

click me