SUBSTITUTE ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT GOAL (REDUX)

Question:
Follow-up to August 23 question about a substitute trying to prevent a goal by entering the pitch without permission. You answered what to do if the goal is made, but . . .
(1) What if the goal is NOT made?
(2) What if it was definitely an OGSO?
(3) What if it was an OGSO and NO foul was committed, but the ball was “fairly” taken/played from the attacker by the substitute (who is an illegal player at this point)?
(4) do any answers change if the scene happens outside the penalty area versus inside the penalty area?

I understand at a minimum a yellow is coming, and a red if denying the goal with a foul.

Mainly, my question is what is the restart to each scenario above?

USSF answer (August 28, 2011):
The original question and answer:

Question: A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play, touches the ball and tries to prevent the ball entering the goal with his foot. The ball, however, enters the goal.

What action does the referee take?

Answer of August 23: The referee should play the advantage and award the goal. The referee should then caution the substitute for unsporting behavior for entering the field of play without the referee’s permission, including all details in the match report. (The referee could also consider a second caution for unsporting behavior for interfering with play and thus send off the substitute for the second caution in a match.) Finally, the referee should prevent substitutes from warming up behind the goals. However, in some stadiums warm-ups are allowed behind the goal (because there is no space along the touchlines).

Answer to current question:

(1) Indirect free kick for the attacking team from the place where the ball was when the referee stopped play for the misconduct.
(2) and (3) A foul or misconduct, regardless of the circumstances, which is not committed against an opponent and which is not handling is not a sending-off offense under Law 12 (at least not under reasons #4 or #5). If it was a tactical foul (which this was not) and was the offender’s second caution, then there would be a send-off, just not under sending-off reasons #4 or #5. Restart as in (1).
(4) No, but it is even less likely to have been an obvious goalscoring opportunity.