February is the season for awards as the Golden Globes, Baftas, Grammys and Oscars create a buzz in the entertainment world.
New Zealand's equivalent of these red-carpet events is the Halbergs, and the emotions expressed soon after the supreme winner was announced last week were highly charged.
In fact, Dick Tayler was so upset by the outcome he announced his resignation from the judging panel.
As a fellow judge, I'm not offended by Dick's actions.
If he feels strongly about this and wants to make a statement by resigning, then that is his prerogative.
In this country, we need more people to stand up for what they believe in.
His actions, nonetheless, did add some heat to the media and talkback debate that followed.
I've been involved in the voting process for two years now, and each year I dwell over how to compare apples with oranges. When new to the process, I asked for some guidance.
As most people will know by now, the supreme Halberg award is awarded to the athlete or team whose achievement in 2010 represented excellence in sport at the highest level.
How each judge interprets excellence is left open to interpretation, and in a world where quantifying and measuring outcomes and performance indicators has become the norm, subjectivity is a dirty word.
I believe, however, that the judging process should remain subjective.
Not everything in this world can be measured and maybe that is the social scientist in me coming out.
I'm also not in favour of getting everyone in a room to debate who should be awarded what.
I've experienced many brainstorming sessions where the person with the biggest mouth, high school certificate in debating and experience in haggling and harassing dominates discussion.
This won't solve the problem of subjectivity - in fact, it may exacerbate it.
And, in frugal times like these, how can we justify spending money on this endeavour?I am, however, in favour of giving the judging panel as much information and guidance as possible.
The 28 judges were asked to regard whether the achievement occurred in that sport's pinnacle, major or milestone event; whether it was a world record, world ranking or international recognition; the quality of the field/competition; and the global nature of the sport.
Did the All Whites and their coach deserve to win according to these criteria? The Football World Cup is that sport's pinnacle event, and soccer, as we like to call it, is one of the most global sports in the world.
The All Whites have gained recognition for being the only team at the tournament not to lose a game, and they did play the previous World Cup winner and performed admirably and consistently throughout the tournament.
Judging the excellence of a coach is even more difficult because we can only speculate based on the outcomes.
Who knows what these coaches do or say on a daily basis with the team/athlete? How do we assess whether they are the reason for the success of that team or athlete? Ricki Herbert appeared to have a game plan that created an outcome no-one would have predicted.
He seems to inspire and motivate the athletes and teams he has been involved with, and what the All Whites achieved in 2010 will be remembered for years to come.
Although the 10 media members of the voting panel should be well informed about most sporting events and athletes, as one of the 18 sporting members it is difficult to know as much about all the nominees and finalists.
Sports and athletes who receive a lot of media coverage and analysis are at a distinct advantage, and so it is important that we get and seek as much information as possible to make reasonable decisions.
In situations like this, you put faith in the democratic process.
As it turned out, 2010 was football's year, and maybe in 2011 it will be rugby's year.
Not so long ago the Silver Ferns cleaned up at the awards and there was controversy about that as well.
Where would we be without sport and controversy? It's why we watch sport and spend hours and hours dissecting it.
Bring on the 2011 Halberg Awards.
I can't wait.
