Pride means more than a win-loss record. The Ridgefield Spudders had no shot at the playoffs, couldn’t even get a winning season with a win Thursday night at Kiggins Bowl. They could, however, finished the 2016 football season with a win over a playoff squad. Jeremy Martin scored on a 4-yard touchdown run with 4 minutes, 50 seconds left in the game, giving Ridgefield a 22-17 lead, and the Spudders defense did the rest in a Class 2A Greater St. Helens League victory over Columbia River. “It’s overwhelming,” said senior Riley Abrams, who accounted for 54 of Ridgefield’s 75 yards on the game-winning drive. “I think a lot of people expected us to get whooped. This team is family, though. We stuck it out until the end.” Ridgefield, with just five seniors on the roster, finished with a 4-5 record in coach Kim Ullman’s first campaign — including a win over Columbia River, a perennial playoff team that moved from Class 3A to 2A this season. The Spudders went 3-3 in GSHL play.

“I have no words for it almost,” said senior Conner Bell, who caught a touchdown pass. “Winning the last game of the season, and the team we beat … no one expected us to perform how we did.” Ridgefield’s defense held Columbia River to 215 yards of offense. River’s two touchdowns came after Ridgefield turnovers, giving the Chieftains short fields. Sophomore linebacker Brock Harrison had a third-down tackle for loss on one drive and a third-down sack on another, leading the Spudders defense. “It’s crazy,” Harrison said. “I was telling the guys, ‘Don’t look at our record. Finish strong, and we’ll win this game.’ Everyone played their hearts out and we got the W.” The Spudders also had to overcome sudden change that turned a nine-point lead into a deficit in the fourth quarter. Columbia River kicker Kent Stricker nailed a 28-yard field goal to cap a 15-play drive — River’s only sustained drive of the game — to make it a 16-10 game.

Ridgefield then fumbled the ensuing kickoff. Six plays later, Columbia River had the lead on Koben Jamison’s 2-yard run. The Spudders did not flinch, though.chair cover rentals in canton ohio Instead, they gained 17 yards on the first play of the next drive — on a run by Martin — before Abrams caught a 23-yard pass and rushed for 31 yards to get to the 4-yard line. oak rocking chair gliderMartin took care of the rest for the five-point lead.wrought iron chair hire Columbia River will be the No. 2 seed out of the 2A GSHL after finishing league play with a 4-2 mark.nursing chair for sale bristol

“Give Ridgefield credit,” Columbia River coach Christian Swain said. “They played like they had no more games, and we didn’t. barber chairs for sale in torontoWe played with no urgency.”lycra chair covers india Columbia River scored first on a Hunter Pearson 5-yard run after a Ridgefield fumble in the first quarter.best pushchair to run with uk The Spudders answered when Harrison caught an 8-yard TD pass from Dawson Lieurance. folding chairs hire melbourneRidgefield’s Joseph Vossenkuhl kicked a 36-yard field goal in the second quarter for a 9-7 lead.chairs for sale at makro

Bell found the end zone midway through the third quarter on a 23-yard pass from Lieurance to make it 16-7. Lieurance completed 14 of 20 passes for 163 yards and two scores. Bell led the Spudders with seven receptions for 84 yards and a score. “It’s one of the greatest feelings in the world,” Bell said. “I just wanted to come out and perform for everyone.” The Spudders did that, one final time in the 2016 football season. RIDGEFIELD 22, COLUMBIA RIVER 17 Ridgefield 6 3 7 6–22 Col. River 7 0 0 10–17 CR — Hunter Pearson 5 run (Kent Stricker kick) Rid — Brock Harrison 8 pass from Dawson Lieurance (run failed) Rid — Joseph Vossenkuhl 36 FG Rid — Conner Bell 23 pass from Lieurance (Vossenkuhl kick) CR — Stricker 28 FG CR — Koben Jamison 2 run (Stricker kick) Rid — Jeremy Martin 4 run (kick failed) RUSHING — Ridgefield: Luke Goddard 1-4, Tamarick Mendoza 1-6, Kevin Miser 1-2, Riley Abrams 9-55, Jeremy Martin 14-65, Lieurance 2-(minus 15), Team 1-(minus 22).

Columbia River: Pearson 11-20, Colby Rabitoy 8-21, Dalton Garrett 2-11, Jack Armstrong 5-24, Jamison 7-37. PASSING — Ridgefield: Lieurance 14-20-0-163. Columbia River: Armstrong 7-16-1-102. RECEIVING — Ridgefield: Harrison 2-17, Bell 7-84, Martin 3-28, Abrams 2-34. Columbia River: Pearson 1-15, Dakota Mason 1-5, Nathan Kunz 1-34, Koben Jamison 2-15, Garrett 2-33.Mark Smith showcases rear-wheel–drive technology. Photo courtesy of Laurie Watanabe As the saying goes, everything old is new again. However, not so much when it comes to rear-wheel–drive power wheelchairs. See, these chairs never actually went away but stayed on a sideline course as the mobility industry moved toward six-wheel power chair technology. Yet, rear-wheel drive is experiencing an upsurge in consumer demand once again, and the reasons have a fascinating tie to clinical needs, consumerism and disability culture. A Brief History of Power Chairs Circa 1955, Everest & Jennings introduced the first widely available “motorized” wheelchair in the United States.

Because manual wheelchairs were propelled by large rear wheels with small front casters, it was only natural that the first power chairs followed that platform. In fact, the first power chairs were very much “motorized” manual wheelchairs. From the start, in the United States, power chairs were rear-wheel drive. Throughout the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s, complex rehab power chairs evolved dramatically — from advanced electronics to higher-performance motors to increased durability to power seating — but stayed strikingly true to the rear-wheel drive platform. Along the way, there were influxes of European front-wheel–drive technologies, but rear-wheel drive maintained its position as the industry standard. It offered predictable handling, evolved well into a “power base” configuration and was the mobility platform that helped literally propel the Independent Living Movement, including the Americans With Disabilities Act. However, in the late '90s and early 2000s, mid- and six-wheel technologies emerged, and clinicians saw tremendous benefits.

First, mid- and 6-wheel technologies were dramatically more maneuverable indoors than rear-wheel–drive technology. That is, a user could turn in tighter spaces. Secondly, mid- and six-wheel technologies were natural fits for power seating. Whereas a rear-wheel–drive power chair had large front casters that can interfere with power-articulating foot platforms, a mid- or six-wheel–drive power chair allowed greater leg positioning possibilities, with small front casters and unencumbered space. Additionally, while rear-wheel drives required longer wheelbases or stabilizing anti-tip wheels for power tilt seating, a mid- or six-wheel power chair's rear casters provided optimal stability. As a result of optimal clinical applications, the younger generation of people with disabilities and recent injuries moved toward mid- and six-wheel technologies, and by 2005, six-wheel technology, specifically, was the industry standard for complex rehab technology. Why Rear-Wheel Drive Never Went Away

Although six-wheel technology experienced overwhelming popularity and technological advancements, the demand for rear-wheel–drive power chairs never went away — despite industry predictions that rear-wheel–drive demand would diminish so severely that the technology would completely disappear. First, an entire generation of those with disabilities spent more than four decades using rear-wheel–drive power chairs, and they've had no interest in changing platforms. They know rear-wheel drive meets their mobility needs, and they're sticking with it. Second, there are clinical aspects to rear-wheel–drive power chairs that many argue remain superior to six-wheel technology. For example, rear-wheel drive technology is based on a principle called “directional stability,” meaning that it naturally tracks straight (as opposed to six-wheel technology, which is more sensitive to oversteering). As a result, those driving with specialty controls, such as switch drivers, or those with lower coordination could find rear-wheel–drive technology easier to steer.

Lastly, with only four wheels on the ground and large front casters, rear-wheel–drive power chairs do exceptionally well on rough terrain because they are less likely to “high-center” and get stuck. (Six-wheel power chairs now have remarkable suspension, but, thanks to front and rear casters, the center drive wheels can still become elevated, causing the chair to lose traction on very rough terrain.) Where Rear-Wheel–Drive Power Chairs Are Today With more than a half-century of history, rear-wheel–drive power chairs are extremely advanced. However, what's truly impressive is that manufacturers now see consumers of rear-wheel drive as a distinct demographic and cater to their needs. Today's rear-wheel–drive power chairs are designed for the most aggressive users with battleship-tough components, very large casters, advanced suspension and built-in reflectors. Put simply, these chairs encompass the independent living culture at its best, with technologies that go from the living room to the mean streets without flinching.