A Swedish third division club are arguing that they have found a 'loophole' in the offside law that could be exploited during matches.
The offside law is set by football's lawmakers, the International Football Association Board (IFAB).
It has seen various small changes to its interpretation over recent years, particularly due to the introduction of VAR to top division football across most of Europe.
The second section of Law 11 - which classifies offside - reads: "A player is in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by the first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used."
Advert
Torns are arguing that an offside is called at the first point of contact, rather than when the ball is released to a team-mate.
In effect, they claim that if a player makes the first contact with the ball and a player is in an onside position, they can release the ball in 'slow motion' to a point where the player is in an offside position - but still deemed onside.
If that sounds confusing, you can check out the video below to see how it works in a practical sense.
The video shows the club's manager approach several of his first team players at training, before asking his 'most technically gifted player', Adam Olafsson, to place the ball on his foot.
He asks an attacker to run beyond the defence - all while the ball remains glued to Olafsson's foot.
The argument is that the attacker was onside at the first point of contact from Olafsson. As a result, when the ball is eventually released, he is deemed to be onside - despite being 10 yards in behind the defence.
In a Twitter thread, Torns wrote: "Torns IF developed a revolutionary method to beat the offside trap and create one-on-ones with the goalkeeper.
"We were hoping the "Torn pass" would become a part of football parlance in parity with the "Cruyff turn" and the "Panenka penalty"."
They then provided a transcript of a conversation with IFAB, who told them: "Your conclusions are fine. We will review if the wording of Law 11 need changing in light of this 'theoretical' situation."
We'll have to wait and see whether Torns IF have caused a revolutionary change to the offside law - or even are named in its wording.
Ryan Smart