ShareThis Page
Kulick throws shutout in return |

Kulick throws shutout in return

| Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:00 a.m

O’HARA TWP: It had been almost two years since Leechburg pitcher Jen Kulick took the mound for a regular-season game. But there she was in the center of the diamond facing Fox Chapel in the Lady Blue Devils’ opener.

Despite missing all of last season with a torn anterior cruciate ligament in her left knee, she barely missed a beat.

Kulick threw seven scoreless innings as Class A Leechburg (1-0) got off to a winning start with a 6-0 victory over the Class AAA Lady Foxes.

“I don’t feel very different right now because I already threw two scrimmages,” Kulick said. “The first scrimmage I threw, it was a rush, a complete rush because I haven’t played for so long. I live for softball, and it was just amazing to be out there.”

Kulick threw a total of 84 pitches, 60 of which went for strikes. She struck out four and surrendered just three hits.

“She has a ways to go yet, but she’s throwing well,” Leechburg head coach Jim Oberdorf said. “I was pleased with the way she was hitting her spots most of the time.”

Kulick and Emily Sprankle had two hits apiece, while Rachel Solomon and Melissa Geer collected two RBI. Maggie Jones tripled.

Leechburg 001 000 5 — 6 10 3.

Fox Chapel 000 000 0 — 0 2 1.

WP: Jen Kulick (1-0). LP: Zivic.

2B: L: Kellie Thomas, Amie Klingensmith. FC: Wilher. 3B: L: Maggie Jones.

Records: L: 1-0.

Next games: Leechburg at Kiski Area, 4 p.m. Thursday.

Categories: News
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.