Yep. It's bizarre that they seem to find it so difficult to say that running towards the ball makes you active. I'd say even the ball being played towards you makes you active, as you give the defender a decision to make. They've managed to tweak the offside rule to the point that you can actually be offside. I'd like to think that wasn't the intention.
Interpretation of the offside rule now is farcical. How any football professional can suggest Marcus Rashford wasn't interfering with play, is embarrassing for me. The law just needs stripping right back to how it was. When the ball is played forward you're either physically in an offside position or you're not (unless they're down injured). And the flag should also go up straight away, not the farce we have today, where the player can run another 20 yards with the ball before the lino flags. This interpretation of interfering is ridiculous. As has been said a thousand times - if you're not interfering with play, you shouldn't be on the pitch.
Funny old game football.. I always suspected that the initial changes to the offside rule such as the not interfering rule, was brought in at the behest of Sky TV so more goals would be scored, enhancing their product. How ironic that the introduction of VAR, at the behest of the premier league teams has in the main, become the tool by which goals are disallowed.