Originally Posted by Vulcan

care to explain that?

Well, we have two possible situations as I see it.

1. One bombsite has been infiltrated and the defending Counter-Terrorists guarding it have been killed. At this time, the two remaining Counter-Terrorists are at one site. Neither have disobeyed the rules.
2. The Terrorists have worn the Counter-Terrorists down to two players, who are each on their own site. Considering that the Terrorist now has the opportunity to pick one of them off and plant before the other can react appropriately, one falls back from his site, leaving it undefended, knowing that, as a pair, he and his teammate will be able to more effectively defend their site and more effectively perform the act of "Counter-Terrorism" in defusing a bomb if planted at the other site. This is using teamwork to complete the objective, and is therefore preferred to leaving one at each site, assuming one could *safely* join his teammate.

As you can clearly see, the Terrorist has the distinct tactical advantage if he is up against one man on each site. On the other hand, if the Counter-Terrorists follow my plan, the Terrorist is taking the risk of meeting two enemies at one site, which is more than twice the challenge of meeting one. If he finds an empty site, he has to plant and then defend against an attack from, ideally, two directions, assuming the two remaining Counter-Terrorists are coordinated. I declare that you are actually doing a disservice to your team if you leave one person alone at a bomb site without the opportunity to run away upon contact.