[JonA]

I agree that it would be in-line with the ideas of FIRST and GP for 1714 to ask to not be considered for the award, but I also believe that should not have had to ask for this treatment. These awards are awarded by the judges for reasons that only they know.

If the judges believed that this team deserved the Rookie Allstar Award, they should get the award. I don't believe it would be ethical to give the judges a list of previous winners before they make their decision since these awards should be given to those who deserve it and having these lists would bias judges. I do believe that the judges should have been presented a list of previous winners by the Judges' Assistant after the awards selection was made so that they could consider and make up their own minds about the implications of giving the same award to a team twice.

Remember that this is a rookie team that probably assumed that the judges would take the fact that they have already won the Rookie Allstar Award into consideration when choosing the Rookie Allstar Award.

I, myself, though that the judges would not even consider a previous winner because of the implications of possibly not allowing another rookie team a trip to nationals. It is interesting to note that the only mentor on this team with experience in FIRST is my friend Kevin Kolodziej, who has a lot of experience at competitions both as a student and a mentor, and even he believed that "[Team 1714 was] automatically out of the running."

In the end, I am sad that another rookie team was possibly not able to go to nationals but I believe that no fault can possibly be found in Team 1714's actions.

Full Disclosure: I am a member of Team 1675, a sponsor and mentor team of Team 1714 and good friend of Kevin Kolodziej.