ShareThis Page
Lower Merion protest denied by PIAA |

Lower Merion protest denied by PIAA

| Saturday, November 6, 2004 12:00 a.m

HERSHEY –Lower Merion coach Joe Monaco protested last Saturday’s PIAA Class AAA team championship match with Fox Chapel. District 1 Lower Merion lost to Fox Chapel, 4-1, in the title match. Monaco filed a protest because Fox Chapel changed its ladder of how the players were to play, from first, second and third singles and first and second doubles. The protest states that Fox Chapel placed its best player in the fourth spot for first doubles because of a back injury. Fox Chapel had a note from a doctor saying Elyse Steiner could only play doubles and not singles. Monaco said that gave Fox Chapel an advantage. His protest was denied by PIAA executive director Brad Cashman. Cashman’s letter stated the WPIAL allowed Fox Chapel to change its lineup going into the team tournament because it had a letter from a physician stating Steiner could only play doubles. The PIAA upheld the WPIAL’s decision.

“I think it was done deliberately,” said Monaco, on Friday at the PIAA singles and doubles championships at Hershey Racquet Club. “You can’t just move players around. I think it affected the outcome of the match.”

Fox Chapel coach Emma Dieffenbach said she was aware of the action taken by Lower Merion.

“They did it because they have been runner up for five years which has been hard for them,” Dieffenbach said. “We had a doctor saying (Elyse) could only cover half the court. They had plenty of opportunities to win. There was no need to protest.”

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.