I believe that two separate issues are being talked about here. The first being rod ratings and the second using line breaking strain rating over diameter (or vice versa).
When it comes to rod ratings, I've long held the belief that they are little more than an arse covering exercise by the manufacturers. However, there's a dollop of the rod's intended use thrown in. It's worth bearing in mind that the only manufacturer that I know of, that has consistently put line ratings on their rods, is Drennan. Their old ranges were invariably given ratings that seem very light compared to current rods. I'm convinced that they were pretty well under-rated in line with the fishing fashions of the day. A few other manufacturers have taken to giving line ratings, but only in their catalogues, not on the rods themselves. However, it's worth taking some of these with a pinch of salt. I know that Daiwa have made more than the odd mistake with catalogue listings of rod line ratings over the years.
It's also worth being careful with terminology. Whilst a pellet waggler rod is undoubtedly used in matches, it's nothing like what many people mean when they say "match rod". I'd expect most pellet waggler rods to have an upper rating of 8lb. For a "match rod" to have such a high rating would be relatively unusual unless it had some kind of prefix such as "Specimen", "Carp" or "Power". The size of the rod rings should give a vague idea of the intentions a manufacturer had for a rod. That's not to say you couldn't squeeze 10lb line through the rings of the average match rod, but it's really not what they intended for it. Good luck trying to cast all but the heaviest floats with such heavy line. I'd like to come and watch, for a giggle.
When it comes to choosing line based on diameter rather than breaking strain, I'm not a fan. I understand, and accept, the theory, but I'm not entirely happy with it. It relies on you being rather intimately acquainted with the properties of the line concerned. A higher diameter does not automatically equate to a higher breaking strain, as some folks seem to believe. That only applies to the same type of line from the same manufacturer. Beyond that, it takes a good understanding of the lines in question to make decisions based on nothing but diameters. It's also worth noting that both stated diameters and breaking strains can be rather inaccurate. As a rule of thumb, standard monos, especially old types such as Maxima and Sensor, tend to be under-rated for breaking strain. Hi-tech lines (pre-stretched mono and fluorocarbon) tend to be over-rated.