While you may think Law 11 needs changing to make more attackers OS, IFAB clearly disagrees. IFAB has had a long and steady path of narrowing when a player can be considered to have been actively involved. It is not oversight that means a player chasing a ball has not yet committed an offense--that was a deliberate choice by IFAB. A few years ago (I'd have to sort through books to tell you exactly when, but I think it would be 5-10 years ago) the play you describe could be considered OS for interfering with an opponent. IFAB does not want that to be OS--they operate under the view that the decision to switch to cover the OS player is a poor choice by the defender. We can debate how fair it is to expect players in dynamic play to now which opponents are in OSP at the time the ball was played (OK, there isn't really a debate--they often flat out can't tell), but IFAB wants goals and to get goals they are deliberately narrowing the scope of what it means to become actively involved--and have been for at least a couple of decades. (And yes, many of us see the irony of this compared to the toenail OS decisions being made by VAR.)