Leave It to Fox...
I remember the first time I watched a Met game with my father that was interrupted by a fan running onto the field. (Actually, I remembering this happen a lot when I was younger, especially when I was at the game; tickets were cheaper, as was the beer, and the Mets were bad enough to make the cop/fan chase the most exciting part of the outing.) Anyway, we knew the stoppage on the field was due to a fan because the announcers were talking about it, though the cameras weren't on him. I asked my dad why they didn't show him. Dad, ever the seasoned vet, replied that if a fan running onto the field was shown on TV, it would only encourage more morons to do the same. As long as I've been watching sports, that's always been the philosophy. Until now. From today's Orlando Sun-Sentinel:
The networks are thinking twice about whether to show fans running onto the playing field during games.At the risk of sounding Mushnick-esque, um, isn't that why the announcers are there? They can just go into their "some idiot has had too much to drink" routine, and we can figure out the rest. Why do we need to see this? Don't get me wrong -- I would love to see the fan/police chase which inevitably ends with with a big police takedown (or the occasional linebacker takedown), I just think that showing them will, in fact, encourage more fans to do so, and more stoppages will ensue.
Fox boss David Hill said that his network has changed its policy and will allow cameras to broadcast intrusions live.
The thinking: viewers deserve to understand why there's been an interruption in a game.