✕ Headline / Body Mismatch [3/10]: The headline captures emotional testimony from parents but does not overstate the article's findings. It accurately reflects the core grievance: systemic failure by the AFL to support families facing bullying and discrimination in grassroots football.

"'Heart ripped out on repeat': Auskick parents say they have been failed by AFL"

✕ Sensationalism [2/10]: The phrase 'heart ripped out on repeat' is emotionally powerful but is a direct quote from a parent and used to convey genuine trauma. Its use is justified by context and attribution.

"'Dreadful. Just like your heart's been ripped out on repeat,' she says."

✕ Loaded Language [2/10]: The article includes charged language from sources (e.g., 'coconut' as a racial slur, 'get your kids and leave'), but these are direct quotes used to illustrate real experiences. The reporter does not insert such language independently.

"You're just a coconut"

✕ Sympathy Appeal [4/10]: The narrative invites reader empathy for children with autism and racial minorities facing exclusion, but this is achieved through authentic testimony rather than manipulation.

"Dustin has autism spectrum disorder level 2 and footy is his special interest. It brings him endless joy, but it has also caused significant distress."

✕ Fear Appeal [3/10]: The article implies risk to children in unregulated environments, but this is grounded in reported incidents and expert commentary, not exaggeration.

"They were so angry at him for doing that ... they just turned their backs."

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [9/10]: The article includes multiple families, a legal and sports integrity expert, and references to systemic patterns. It avoids overreliance on any single source.

✓ Proper Attribution [10/10]: All key claims are attributed to named individuals or documented processes. Quotes are clearly marked and contextualised.

"Dave says the integrity officer told him making a complaint would make things worse for Dustin."

✓ Viewpoint Diversity [8/10]: The article includes perspectives from affected families, club silence, and AFL non-response. It also incorporates expert analysis that broadens the frame beyond individual cases.

"Dr Ordway says there is insufficient transparency in how the AFL is handling integrity matters at the grassroots."

✕ Official Source Bias [4/10]: The AFL and clubs declined to comment, limiting direct rebuttal. However, the article acknowledges this and uses expert analysis to balance the narrative.

"The AFL said it would not comment as 'it does not provide commentary regarding particular integrity matters'."

✕ Narrative Framing [4/10]: The article is structured around personal stories of harm and institutional failure, which is appropriate given the investigative focus. It avoids reducing the issue to episodic drama by linking cases to systemic patterns.

"They were told AFL Victoria would be in touch but 'we just never heard from them'."

✕ Framing by Emphasis [5/10]: The article emphasizes the emotional toll on families and the lack of accountability, which is justified by the evidence. It does not ignore counterpoints but highlights what is missing in the system.

"It felt like there was no clear end to it, apart from them trying to remove us from being a problem"

✕ Moral Framing [6/10]: The article implicitly frames the issue as a moral failure of safeguarding and inclusion, especially given the vulnerability of children with autism and racial minorities. This is supported by evidence and expert commentary.

"There's always something in the news about homophobia or racism or something that's come out at AFL level. How could people learn if they're not being taught by adults (that it's wrong)?"