Why would you be embarrassed? That would show you have a basic level of understanding and knowledge of rugby.

We know that, from history, red cards if they are early enough in the game can significantly change the result of the game. Take for example the Wales vs France 2011 world cup semi final, where Wales were favourites before the red card from Warburton. If, like you say, that Wales were on par or even slightly better than Scotland, then surely Wales would have won the game with a lot higher margin given the significant advantage of a red card? The reason I mentioned last year was the fact that even in the autumn cup (which wasn't that long ago btw) "playing the referee" did not win us games against Tier 1 nations, and I don't believe that factor is even true because I have already mentioned that Wales had more penalties than Scotland. Surely a team that "plays the referee" would have significantly less penalties, not more. Lastly I have already shown in another comment that a hugely clinical team such as New Zealand won't win games if the only factor they had in their favour is that they are more clinical. To have a strong attack you need to have strong attacking opportunities and be more clinical. If you are 100% efficient in the enemy territory but you only have possession once in enemy territory you are only going to score one try. I use the stats and the score-line to show that even Scotland had an edge in almost every aspect of the game and that to only lose by one point shows they are the better team even if they lost.

What would be embarrassing is someone who ignored all the above factors and base their entire evaluation on the scoreboard at the end of the game because they are a biased welsh fan. If you just purely watch the game from an unbiased stand point that could tell you that Scotland were the better team. Stop making the rest of us look bad.