[gblake]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

This is the classic tragedy of the commons problem - we have a scarce resource over which we compete but there is no means of allocating that scarce resource amongst ourselves. That leads to conflict that is not easily resolved.

The reasons why seats are saved are generally rationale and important:
- Adult mentors must be able to monitor the minor students in their charge.
- Scouts, who are participants in the action on the field and in the metacompetition in the tournament, need good views of the field and to be in close proximity to each other run scouting systems.
- Teammates and supporters prefer fellow companionship.

The current rule doesn't recognize any of those imperative needs. In fact, I have not seen a clear rationale for the existing rule.

...

Setting aside whether or not those are imperatives, and whether or not the current rule needs to recognize them; the current rule does accommodate all three just fine, so long as the venue is an appropriate one.

- Adult mentors can monitor students in whatever sized groupings the adults care to use.
--- Adult mentors will be wise to adapt the size of student groups they monitor to be compatible with the available blocks of open seats.
- People (teammates and supporters) wishing to sit together can move as far away from the field as is necessary to find a large enough block(s) of open seats.
- Scouts who wish to use a scouting system that is incompatible with the current FIRST rules, will be wise to choose a more appropriate scouting system.

If event planners are forced into using a venue that won't have enough usable seats (expected attendance, plus some extras), the event planners should put in place special rules/plans that will produce reasonable compromises; otherwise the current rule seems fine to me.

Did I overlook anything?

Blake