If 3D is a success does that mean the video ref can now judge forrrrwaaaard passes?

They are NOT incompatible at all, all 3D tv's are capable of showing both forms of 3D, both passive and active. The match in 3D was awesome, albeit sport is not the best medium for 3D anyway, unlike a film which is specifically made for 3D.

The people who are willing to knock 3D fall into one of the following categories:
1) those who have not witnessed or seen it.
2) those who cannot afford it, so wish it to fail.
3) those who have recently bought what they thought was an up to date tv.
4) those that are wary of anything new (usually oldies)
5) jealousy.

3D is here to stay, major films are being made and released in 3D, Sky is starting to transmit 3D, TV's that are 3D (or 3D ready are already on sale.

ITS THE FUTURE.................I'VE SEEN IT.

too true. If everyone waited, they wouldn't sell anything. Before 3D without glasses becomes the norm. (years away yet)
there are warehouses full of 'old' technology to shift. i.e. people are still buying 32" tv's, Plasma tv's, LCD tv's, tv's without freeview HD in them, 50hz and 100hz flatscreen tv's.
Its only when all these old tv's have been shifted or people stop buying them that 46"+ LED 400hz Freeview HD 3D tv's become the norm.

I'm not knocking 3D at all, just suggesting people don't splash out a couple of grand for the current system when the integral imaging or lenticular TVs will soon be available, obviating the need for glasses. In the meantime, for the limited amount of 3D material available, watch in the pub!

Certainly intend to go watch a replay this week I think.

I havent seen a game in 3D yet but from watching the pre game coverage on Friday they said that the cameras are situated lower down the stand, instead of the HD cameras that are up in the gantry. Does this affect your view of the game at all, as you tend to look through the action instead of above?

They were certainly high enough for a pretty standard view, they may have been lower than a normal game at the DW, but certainly not noticeably so, and probably higher than at many other grounds.

The main difference was that instead of one side camera on the halfway line, they had 3, one on each 10m line, and one on the halfway.

They also didn't zoom in as much, and at times the action did seem a touch to far away when play was on the far side of the pitch, although I think this was to add depth to the picture.

I think they will get the angles better over time, but it was genrally very very good, and well presented.