NOW to sometime later in the year (maybe) - Talk about anything

[Bunk Moreland]

The rule now is a player can only get credit for finals eligibility, one game per week and that is at the highest level. If you play U19's and Seniors in the same weekend - the U/19 game doesn't count towards finals eligibility. Same for VFL and local footy - the VFL games counts not the local game

What I hope they’ve cleaned up is that a VFL player must play local seniors to get a qualification game credit.

What some clubs were doing is listing these players in the reserves or even thirds (in other leagues) and using that to qualify them.

If they want to falsely list a player as having played, let them do it in the seniors and play one short.

 

[Glorfindel]

The rule now is a player can only get credit for finals eligibility, one game per week and that is at the highest level. If you play U19's and Seniors in the same weekend - the U/19 game doesn't count towards finals eligibility. Same for VFL and local footy - the VFL games counts not the local game

It wouldn’t have applied in this case anyway as he wasn’t playing in the VFL

 

[Voice of the G]

The Park Orchards short of players for U19,s a surpise.Perhaps time with U19,s we look at 16 player on the field and grade all U19,s similar to our juniors and not align them up with where our 1,s and 2,s play. Understand the negative response in what I have said but our kids 18 and 19 years of age have their life ahead of them and jobs, education are so more important then playing Saturday morning U19,s.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The Park Orchards short of players for U19,s a surpise.Perhaps time with U19,s we look at 16 player on the field and grade all U19,s similar to our juniors and not align them up with where our 1,s and 2,s play. Understand the negative response in what I have said but our kids 18 and 19 years of age have their life ahead of them and jobs, education are so more important then playing Saturday morning U19,s.

It’s already 16 a side I think… as in if either club wants to play 16, you have to. You play 18 by agreement of both.

I think three games on Saturday (preferably against the same club) works really well so wouldn’t like to see it independently graded.

One idea I don’t mind is just to take the U17.5s an extra six months and just make it Under 18s (the top grade on Sunday). The SMJFL is already Under 18 and the YJFL might be too, not sure. As are the girls comps. It lines up with Coates League too so senior clubs aren’t dealing with that and they don’t have to deal with underage kids.

Then your third grade on Saturday can become Under 21, Under 23 or something like that - a genuine senior development grade, not juniors. You could even have something like Under 23s, but half a dozen players can be over 23 to make it easier to field a side. A few soccer comps have that setup in addition to Seniors and Reserves.

It always seems a good setup to have three games on a Saturday against the same club. But maybe my thinking is outdated.

 

[outside_off]

It’s already 16 a side I think… as in if either club wants to play 16, you have to. You play 18 by agreement of both.

I think three games on Saturday (preferably against the same club) works really well so wouldn’t like to see it independently graded.

One idea I don’t mind is just to take the U17.5s an extra six months and just make it Under 18s (the top grade on Sunday). The SMJFL is already Under 18 and the YJFL might be too, not sure. As are the girls comps. It lines up with Coates League too so senior clubs aren’t dealing with that and they don’t have to deal with underage kids.

Then your third grade on Saturday can become Under 21, Under 23 or something like that - a genuine senior development grade, not juniors. You could even have something like Under 23s, but half a dozen players can be over 23 to make it easier to field a side. A few soccer comps have that setup in addition to Seniors and Reserves.

It always seems a good setup to have three games on a Saturday against the same club. But maybe my thinking is outdated.

Better to play the under 19 kids in grades based on ability rather than division where seniors play. If 19s team win a flag well done but move up a grade for next season. Not perfect - because team could be top-age premiership side but better than having same team win premierships in lower division ever year. Challenge the good sides. Every second week would be a 19s-res-seniors triple header at home anyway?

 

[guest666]

Boronia 0 surprises me. Mellis was supposed to play the Sydney VFL game the other week before the flooding called it off. Also thought Preston was still VFL aligned? Boronia the team to beat in DIV1 imo if they dont have any VFL players and are all at Boronia full time

Montrose have recruited heavy and Park Orchards were a much better team last season. Div 1 shaping up to be the most exciting division this season

 

[Fatboy35]

Better to play the under 19 kids in grades based on ability rather than division where seniors play. If 19s team win a flag well done but move up a grade for next season. Not perfect - because team could be top-age premiership side but better than having same team win premierships in lower division ever year. Challenge the good sides. Every second week would be a 19s-res-seniors triple header at home anyway?

Currently, clubs have the flexibility to nominate the division in which their Under 19s compete. Most clubs choose to align their Under 19s with the same division as their senior team, as this allows for a smoother player pathway and better integration across the club’s three men’s teams.

However, some clubs have taken an approach by placing their Under 19s in the division they believe best suits that group, rather than automatically matching their senior division. While this is less common, there have been notable examples. In 2024, Surrey Park entered their first Under 19 side in Division 1, and in 2023, South Croydon fielded their Under 19s in Division 2. These decisions, however, remain the exception rather than the norm.

Another factor influencing club decisions is scheduling. The EFNL has set women’s football as the default 10:40 am time slot, which in turn pushes Under 19 matches back to an 8:50 am start. This earlier start time can also play a role in where and how clubs choose to place their Under 19 teams.

 

[Fatboy35]

It’s already 16 a side I think… as in if either club wants to play 16, you have to. You play 18 by agreement of both.

I think three games on Saturday (preferably against the same club) works really well so wouldn’t like to see it independently graded.

One idea I don’t mind is just to take the U17.5s an extra six months and just make it Under 18s (the top grade on Sunday). The SMJFL is already Under 18 and the YJFL might be too, not sure. As are the girls comps. It lines up with Coates League too so senior clubs aren’t dealing with that and they don’t have to deal with underage kids.

Then your third grade on Saturday can become Under 21, Under 23 or something like that - a genuine senior development grade, not juniors. You could even have something like Under 23s, but half a dozen players can be over 23 to make it easier to field a side. A few soccer comps have that setup in addition to Seniors and Reserves.

It always seems a good setup to have three games on a Saturday against the same club. But maybe my thinking is outdated.

I’m not a supporter of the 16‑player rule. Australian football is 18 v 18, and making 16 the default ends up rewarding the team with the fewest numbers. My preference is a simple even‑up rule: Number on the field = total players available minus one.

So- If a team turns up with 19 players → 18 on the field, 1 on the bench. If a team has 17 players → 16 on the field, 1 on the bench.

What I struggle with is seeing situations where one club has 20 or more players available, yet the match is reduced to 16 v 16 because the opposition is short. In those cases, the team with fewer players effectively gets the deciding say, and the club that has done the right thing and turned up with strong numbers is the one that suffers.

I know this might sound a bit harsh, but at times it feels like we’re rewarding the exception rather than the rule. If a club is consistently low on numbers, perhaps the better solution is to drop down a division or two, rather than expecting the opposition to compromise and 'give you a chop‑out.'

 

[localfootylegend23]

It’s already 16 a side I think… as in if either club wants to play 16, you have to. You play 18 by agreement of both.

I think three games on Saturday (preferably against the same club) works really well so wouldn’t like to see it independently graded.

One idea I don’t mind is just to take the U17.5s an extra six months and just make it Under 18s (the top grade on Sunday). The SMJFL is already Under 18 and the YJFL might be too, not sure. As are the girls comps. It lines up with Coates League too so senior clubs aren’t dealing with that and they don’t have to deal with underage kids.

Then your third grade on Saturday can become Under 21, Under 23 or something like that - a genuine senior development grade, not juniors. You could even have something like Under 23s, but half a dozen players can be over 23 to make it easier to field a side. A few soccer comps have that setup in addition to Seniors and Reserves.

It always seems a good setup to have three games on a Saturday against the same club. But maybe my thinking is outdated.

Agree 100% with the ages being upped AND the 3 games against the same club.

the days of u19s are coming to a end.

 

[Th3B1gD0g]

Anyone practise match results around the eastern suburbs?

 

[hansie]

Agree 100% with the ages being upped AND the 3 games against the same club.

the days of u19s are coming to a end.

Personally I always thought it should’ve been left at u18, and 16s the last year of junior football

 

[Big John Studd]

Anyone practise match results around the eastern suburbs?

Rowville beat the Pines. 150 to 18 or similar

 

[Harry Cheezels]

Anyone practise match results around the eastern suburbs?

Macleod beat donvale by a couple of goals. Both sides better players either didn't play or played managed minutes but a good hit out.

 

[magpies2013]

Pascoe Vale beat Doncaster East in the gather rd at Yarrawonga. Games were only 2x20min halves.

 

[RillaRoo]

Anyone practise match results around the eastern suburbs?

Laurimar comfortably beat Doncaster, St Marys beat East Burwood by roughly 50 as well

 

[Fatboy35]

Agree 100% with the ages being upped AND the 3 games against the same club.

the days of u19s are coming to a end.

I’m not convinced the U/19s competition is dead. Over the last four seasons, more clubs and more teams have participated. In 2025, 38 clubs entered a total of 45 teams, which is an increase compared to 2024 and the two previous seasons.

Maybe when the finalised U/19's draw comes out this year maybe it will show a decrease in participation.

 

[localfootylegend23]

Laurimar comfortably beat Doncaster, St Marys beat East Burwood by roughly 50 as well

Laurimar played a u22 line up apparently, but i've heard the majority of them are around that age and they played finals in NFNL Div 3 last year, have a huge junior setup out there as a massive growth area.

Hard to judge Doncaster from this, but they should be up and about after finally getting on the park.

I’m not a supporter of the 16‑player rule. Australian football is 18 v 18, and making 16 the default ends up rewarding the team with the fewest numbers. My preference is a simple even‑up rule: Number on the field = total players available minus one.

So- If a team turns up with 19 players → 18 on the field, 1 on the bench. If a team has 17 players → 16 on the field, 1 on the bench.

What I struggle with is seeing situations where one club has 20 or more players available, yet the match is reduced to 16 v 16 because the opposition is short. In those cases, the team with fewer players effectively gets the deciding say, and the club that has done the right thing and turned up with strong numbers is the one that suffers.

I know this might sound a bit harsh, but at times it feels like we’re rewarding the exception rather than the rule. If a club is consistently low on numbers, perhaps the better solution is to drop down a division or two, rather than expecting the opposition to compromise and 'give you a chop‑out.'

Wasn't sure this was a thing in senior mens football, if you are short too bad i always thought. not sure about u19s.

Seen some vafa games last season start 16v22 (4 on the bench) or start 18v22 and end 16v22.

Women's football already play with 16, and i think they have to even up if the oppo is short (not sure on the minimum amount) which i'd like to see ended

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I heard today (it was grapevine so may not be accurate) that Oakleigh District are really lacking in numbers and at this stage have next to no hope of fielding a reserves side (unless senior players double up). The league and club looking for a solution.

 

[Wild Thing]

I heard today (it was grapevine so may not be accurate) that Oakleigh District are really lacking in numbers and at this stage have next to no hope of fielding a reserves side (unless senior players double up). The league and club looking for a solution.

Should never have left the Southern League…..have gone nowhere since crossing!

 

[magpies2013]

Mitcham convincing win over Whittlesea
Vermont beat Boronia
Mt Eliza easily over Wantirna South

 

[champp53]

East Burwood too good for The Gully in ones and twos. Twos by about 14 goals ones by 50 points. Two good hard games

 

[Pendles1991]

I heard today (it was grapevine so may not be accurate) that Oakleigh District are really lacking in numbers and at this stage have next to no hope of fielding a reserves side (unless senior players double up). The league and club looking for a solution.

Oakleigh Districts are dying a slow death. They're another club reliant in coaches bringing players with them. Since Pearson left they've lost an abundance of players including some of there best. Wouldn't be surprised if Amin leaves if it continues and then they're in real trouble.

 

[good thing]

interesting times coming up for Beacy with Jake Aarts ….they won’t be clearing him and it looks like going to appeals board Good on Beacy he signed a 2 year deal and now wants out.
I Hope he has to stand out for a year.

 

[localfootylegend23]

interesting times coming up for Beacy with Jake Aarts ….they won’t be clearing him and it looks like going to appeals board Good on Beacy he signed a 2 year deal and now wants out.
I Hope he has to stand out for a year.

Where does he want to go?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

interesting times coming up for Beacy with Jake Aarts ….they won’t be clearing him and it looks like going to appeals board Good on Beacy he signed a 2 year deal and now wants out.
I Hope he has to stand out for a year.

Unless they haven’t paid him or he isn’t actually contracted then it won’t be going to an appeal - no grounds to appeal on.