Torns IF, a club competing in the Swedish third tier, has initiated a philosophical debate with football’s rule-making body, IFAB, after exploiting what they believe to be a clever workaround for the offside law.
Located in the small town of Stångby with an estimated population of just 2,000, Torns IF has garnered attention through their innovative use of social media.
In a video shared on social media, the head coach of Torns, Richard Ringhov, is seen studying the latest version of the offside law in his office. The law stipulates that the decision regarding an offside player is determined at the “first point of contact” of the pass leading to the player, not when the ball leaves the passer’s foot. This rule change was introduced with the advent of VAR, and Ringhov finds it intriguing. He proceeds to coach his players to lift the ball with their feet and keep it suspended in mid-air.
The essence of Ringhov’s idea is straightforward: if offside is determined as soon as the passer touches the ball, then as long as the ball remains in contact with the passer’s foot, their teammates can advance as far up the field as they want before receiving the pass. The video showcases Torns’ players practicing this technique, which appears to work successfully until the striker misses the target with his shot.
Torns subsequently revealed that they contacted IFAB, the international football rule-making body, to seek clarification on whether their innovation complies with the rules. According to Torns, the response from IFAB suggested that it might be permissible.
In the online thread, Torns shared what they claimed to be IFAB’s responses to their inquiry. One message stated, “This is amusing and interesting! In terms of the ‘spirit’ of the Law, this is obviously offside, and in terms of the Law itself, the ‘balancing’ of the ball on the foot is a different ‘play’ from the movement that gives the ball momentum to move.”
Torns further raised questions about when such a movement would start and end and whether, in the case of a scooped pass, the final point of contact would be the relevant one for the referee. IFAB’s response, as relayed by Torns, was to “review if the wording of Law 11 needs changing in light of this ‘theoretical’ situation.”