MAKING changes to team selection is always a difficult process.

What was different in the selection of the Queensland team for State of Origin II is that some players missed the cut because of the way the game will be refereed.

I feel sorry about David Shillington and Ben Hannant missing out on the team.

The simple fact is that we could not afford to select them under the current interpretation of the 10m defensive rule.

The way the referees are policing the 10m line in Origin at the moment, one of a football team's greatest assets - talented, big, yard-making forwards - is being reduced to a liability.

You would think that 10m is 10m wherever you go. The line markings on the field were designed to take away some of the guesswork.

But in Origin I, we were consistently brought back 11m or 12m in the defensive line.

I personally do not understand the need for it. Why do we have to keep the two teams so far apart?

Origin is a fast enough game as it is. I don't think anyone in the past decade has sat back after an Origin game and thought "well, that was slow and boring".

All the current interpretation of the 10m is doing is taking the big fellows out of the game.

When it came to picking the team for Origin II, our hand was forced to a certain degree into picking more mobile players who are better equipped to cope with the yards they have to cover in defence.

As a result, through no fault of their own, players like Shillington, Hannant, Josh McGuire and Martin Kennedy become harder to select because they are no longer suited to the style of game Origin has been allowed to become.

Under a regulation 10m, with a greater emphasis on gaining momentum in a set through the hard toil of the big men, those players and others like them come right back into the equation.

Ultimately, instead of just picking the best Queensland team to beat NSW, Maroons selectors are being forced to choose teams that best suit a referee's interpretation.

Unfortunately, that line of thinking also extends to match tactics and the style of game that we play. We have to plan for the interpretation of the rules.

To give you an example, we currently have one of the best if not the best players in the world at hooker in Cameron Smith.

But we cannot formulate a game plan that maximises Cameron's fantastic running game, because it will be brought undone by the leniency currently shown to defenders standing offside at marker.

Fans love these big games because we get to see the best players produce their best football against the best opposition.

On paper, there are few better head-to-head battles than that between Cameron and Robbie Farah. Both players are exceptionally talented in every facet of the game, two of the best playmakers in the world, yet their influence on the game is being suffocated because every time they pick up the ball, they are immediately under pressure. I am sure Laurie Daley would tell you exactly the same thing.

Complaining about referees is an easy avenue for a coach, I understand that.

But this is not about lop-sided penalty counts, or decisions about the sin-bin or forward passes.

We have got to the stage where the teams are being chosen, and the game is being played to suit the style and interpretations of the referees.

It seems like the tail is wagging the dog.

How do we want the referees to control the match? Simple play within the rules.

We have rules and guidelines there to follow. They are all written down. If everyone is working off the same page, there can be no room for argument.

That is what the referees are there for to ensure the players perform within the boundaries set by the laws of the game.

If those rules are breached, they are penalised. We shouldn't be in a situation where success in State of Origin football becomes less about ability, and more about adaptability.