First, the judges rank the initial selection of nominees for each category which can number up to 18 teams or athletes. They independently rank the nominees from 1-8 to determine the finalists.
For the second phase of voting, they are given the list of the finalists across sportsman, sportswoman, disabled athlete and teams - ranking all 18 from 1-18. So for example, a judge could rank five teams in the top five spots for the supreme award.
Bond and Murray could have potentially received zero No 1 rankings for the supreme award but could have come out on top because they had the best average ranking.
At no point do they meet to discuss the merits of each team or individual.
Judges are then blamed for picking a winner for the supreme award when it's entirely plausible none of them voted for overall winner. That needs fixing.
It's clear the Halberg Awards need revamping to ensure they come up with the most worthy winner each year, otherwise the credibility of the event will continue to suffer.
The easiest solution would be to have the judges rank the finalists for each category - then add a third step where they are given the four main category winners and rank them for the supreme award.
But that's not the only issue with the voting process. The criteria needs to be clearer.
The Herald have identified five categories that should be considered for future Halbergs (hopefully Halberg bosses take notice, otherwise we could run our own awards).
What should be considered when deciding on the category and supreme awards?
Legacy
In five years when we look back on the sporting achievements of 2014, these are what we'll think of - Brendon McCullum's 302, Auckland City's Club World Cup run, Lydia Ko's first professional season and the Kiwis winning the Four Nations. Even a pretty outstanding All Blacks season will merge into every other pretty outstanding All Blacks season and it's the same for Bond and Murray and Valerie Adams. This is probably the most important criteria.
Legacy also includes the questions: Has this been done before and when was the last time it was achieved? The first New Zealander to win the US Masters or the first Black Caps to score a triple century certainly means a lot more than if another shot put world champion comes along.
World stage
Olympics and World Cups trump everything. Golf majors, annual world championships and tournaments where you have a shot each year or even several times a year are a step down. Deciding whether one gold medal is more important than another (1500m is a blue-riband event) is a dangerous path to go down but prestige should be a factor.
Strength of opposition
Bond and Murray were the only major nominees at last night's awards in which it's difficult to name an opponent. Now that might say more about my lack of rowing knowledge but it's no secret that stronger rowers have shied away from their events because they Kiwis are too strong. This has to a factor when voting. If Brendon McCullum's triple century was against Zimbabwe, then it's a lesser achievement than against India.
Frequency of event
Adding further to the previous point, if you get to compete in an event every year (world championships) that ranks below an event that takes place every two or four years. The added pressure of standing on the blocks in a final which you have been training four years for outranks an event which takes place annually.
World placing
You often hear the argument that football is the most-played sport in the world and the Fifa World Cup is the pinnacle event. So if the All Whites do well on that stage, then it must trump everything. Like comparing events with each other, there is merit in it being considered but only conjuction with the other four criteria above.
