Archive

ShareThis Page
Chilly golfers fail to qualify | TribLIVE.com
News

Chilly golfers fail to qualify

UNIONTOWN — The temperature may have crashed to 50 degrees Monday, but high school golf scores rose into the 80s and beyond.

If you think the sudden cold sent chills through your body, talk to Derek White. One week after medaling at the his WPIAL section qualifiers with a 4-under 68, the Ringgold golfer struggled to a 10-over 81 Monday at Uniontown Country Club.

“It was cold out there,” White said. “I was trying to stay warm while watching Rohanna, which was even tougher.”

White was referring to Waynesburg’s Rob Rohanna, who shot a course-best 67 to advance to the WPIAL finals a week from today at Cedarbrook. White wasn’t the only Mid-Mon Valley golfer to struggle — nine others shot well over par and failed to qualify.

Also at Uniontown, Ringgold’s Nick Siudela shot an 88. The trio of Elizabeth Forward players, who all shot in the 70s last week at Butler’s Golf Course, did not advance. They are Ryan Heilman (84), Jamie Essay (88) and Scott Finnegan (90).

California Area’s Jason Dayner made the qualifier as an alternate when another player went down sick. After shooting well last week at Greene County Country Club, Dayner (84) and teammate Justin Schaum (85) struggled at the course.

“The back nine is a much more difficult layout compared to the front nine,” Ringgold coach Bob Osleger said. “These kids go 2 or 3 over and it snowballs.”

In other WPIAL qualifiers, three other area golfers toiled at Latrobe Elks. Bentworth’s Nick Thompson, who tied the leader board with a 70 last week, finished with a 94. Charleroi Area’s Dom Marozza (98) and Monessen’s Zack Cerini (106) both shot well over par.

The course and temperatures were apparently rough on everyone. Franklin Regional’s Don Thomas was tops at Latrobe with a 1-over 73.


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.