I'm still confused about the post about the members of world rugby's executive committee Bullrush because isn't a large part of your debate that no one has the right to tell someone how they feel about their heritage? I certaintly know a lot of white individuals who have a strong affiliation with their pacific island heritage. It seems clear to me that the majority of poster believe 2 things: a.) it's important to not devalue the eligibility requirements by allowing people to switch allegiances willy nilly and; b.) players can have an affiliation with more than one country making it a hard decision to choose the country to represent and they should be able to represent both. Can someone explain the 7's loophole to me? It's been ta;led about often but I've never really read into it. I think something like a 5 year residency, 5 year wait (representing a tier 1 nation and moving to a tier 2) could work?