KEY POINTS:
Right now, a lot of league fans will be asking just what the Kiwis have to do to win a Halberg Award. The answer is obvious - take up rowing.
As always, this year's list of Halberg winners tells us more about the judges than the achievements of those who picked up the gongs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the judges for their inability to pay due credit to sports such as league. They, just like the rest of us, are simply victims of their own ingrained prejudices.
I blame the people who appoint the judges, who believe the whole exercise is somehow worthwhile, who don't see it for the pointless love-in it really is.
No doubt the people charged with delivering the Halbergs verdicts do their best to approach the task with an open mind. But that is simply not possible.
The judges are asked to vote for what they think, not what they know.
There is, after all, no right or wrong when it comes to comparing the achievements of a rowing crew with a league team, of a World Cup win with an Olympic medal.
There is no black and white, only shades of grey.
In the absence of certainty, the judges fall back on gut instinct. They vote for what they feel. And what they feel is based purely on their individual experiences.
The bottom line when it comes to the Halberg panel is that nine out of its 30 members have backgrounds in Olympic sports. Just two - media liaison Richard Becht and former Kiwis coach Howie Tamati - have any affiliation with league.
The panel is also seriously skewed in terms of the ethnicity, socio-economic and socio-geographic status of its members.
If the average income and education level of the panellists were compared with national averages, one suspects most would land well and truly on the right side of the tracks. Which is where they either come from or live now. I don't know the backgrounds of the panellists, but I'd wager that not many live in Otara, Porirua or Halswell.
Is it really any wonder then that, year after year, the gongs largely go to the same narrow band of elitist sports - rowing, athletics, yachting, equestrian - while the likes of league, softball and boxing are consistently ignored?
That's not to say the Halbergs can't spring the odd surprise. I was gobsmacked when a racing driver was chosen ahead of a windsurfer for the Sportsman of the Year. Although I suspect that says more about the status of windsurfing than the popularity of the Indie 500 with the Halberg judges.
The Halbergs are no different to most awards ceremonies, with a bunch of like-minded people getting together to pat some of their own on the back.
There's nothing much wrong with that. But the problem with the Halbergs is they masquerade as being representative of national opinion - something they most certainly are not.
To achieve that, the judges would need to be a genuine cross-section of New Zealand society. The panel would need to consist of doctors, forklift drivers, primary school teachers, prisoners and the unemployed.
I choose simply to ignore the awards. I don't watch them and they aren't a topic of discussion in my house.
That works just fine for me. But perhaps it's time a couple of tough questions were asked. Such as on what basis does this entity feel it has the right to decree who New Zealand's premier sportsperson is? And what purpose do they think announcing their jaundiced view serves?
The whole shebang is pure farce.
