SO it turns out football fans don't have a monopoly on indignation directed at referees.

Swansea, West Brom and this weekend Sunderland fans may feel differently, but the sporting refereeing controversy of the year in the UK occurred in Manchester on Saturday night.

It was hard to sleep a wink over the sound of the righteously indignant on Saturday as even the anguished cries of England's batsman at the Gabba was drowned out by anger from boxing fans.

But it was more than that. As an aside from this column primarily about Carl Froch, I was blown away by just how many people seemed to be watching or listening to the big fight on Saturday between Froch and George Groves.

The viewpoint of some that boxing is a minority sport is simply wrong and the reaction to the fight on Saturday was illuminating.

Opinions, of course, are like backsides in that we've all got them and I'm not going to add my name to the list of people hammering referee Howard Foster, the new Alain Rolland.

Within a minute of the conclusion to the fight I opined on Twitter that he'd made a mistake and should've administered a standing eight count to Groves and even then I added the caveat that it's easy to say such a thing in hindsight.

The primary objective of a boxing official will always be the safety of the two fighters. I believe Foster made a mistake, but he did so for the right reasons, namely to protect Groves.

I have no time at all for those arguing that it was "definitely," going to be over anyway and that Groves "couldn't," recover from two stiff shots from Froch that unquestionably hurt him.

How can anyone say such a thing with any certainty? Who would be so dismissive of Groves as to state as fact that he couldn't recover his faculties after two big hits? The same bright minds who said Froch would utterly outclass Groves perhaps?

The truth is we will never know. We will never know what would've happened if the fight continued, we will never know if Groves could've recovered to complete the victory he was on his way to earning before he was caught in the nine round.

There are certain things, however, that we do know.

I feel obliged to start by stating, once again, my admiration for the boxing skills of Carl Froch.

His resilience is possibly unparalleled in the sport and he possesses a world class chin and world class power. He is a fine world champion and will be remembered as one of the best from these shores.

However, and of course there is a however, Froch is not on the level of Joe Calzaghe, this we saw on Saturday.

Essentially that's why a South Wales Argus columnist is writing about a fight in Manchester featuring boxers from London and Nottingham. Froch has made himself newsworthy in South Wales by continuing to attempt to define his own legacy, such as when he stated it was "him and Lennox Lewis," as the best ever from Britain.

Not only is Froch not on Calzaghe's level in the ring, the comparison between the two of them shouldn't stop there.

The difference between Calzaghe's conduct in the latter stages of his career and that of Froch are night and day.

The sight of Froch initially refusing to shake Groves' hand in the ring on Saturday was ugly. Just like some of the things said in the lead up to the fight, by both fighters, was ugly. But at 36-years old, the onus is on Froch to be the bigger and better man, or certainly the more mature one.

Froch described Groves as being a domestic level fighter but he's obviously far from it. If he is, then a domestic level fighter made Froch look slow, complacent and at times, amazingly, weak, for eight rounds.

I had Groves winning five of those first eight sessions - the first a 10-8 round - and the general opinion seems to at least be in agreement that Groves had been dominating until the stoppage came.

Can anyone recall Joe Calzaghe enduring similar during his career? Me neither.

By attempting to define himself as the best, by deriding Cefn Fforest fighter Nathan Cleverly and Newbridge's Calzaghe over a number of years, Froch remains a champion who holds fascination for all the wrong reasons round these parts.

But where he goes from here it's tough to know, because I'll be astonished if he wants the rematch with Groves the public will crave.

I've already heard Froch say that he "doesn't owe Groves anything," and I'm certain that he believes that.

But boxing fans across the UK certainly disagree.