No, in order to score a goal, all you need is for the ball to fully cross the goal line. Even if the goalie stops the ball from hitting the net, it is still a goal if the ball has crossed the line.
Yes, because it is in-direct and so if it was shot and the ball went into the goal with no one touching it, the goal would not count.
Conductors emerging from the ground must be enclosed in approved raceways. This is to protect the conductors from becoming damaged and starting a fire.
Affirming the antecedent is a logical fallacy where one assumes that if the initial condition is true, then the conclusion must also be true. An example would be: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet." If the ground is wet, it must be raining.
No, it's not true. Terrorism is a strategy, not a goal.
Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy where someone assumes that if a statement is true, then its consequence must also be true. For example: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is wet, so it must be raining." This is flawed because there could be other reasons for the ground to be wet besides rain.
NO. It does not matter if the ball is played by a defender before or after entering the circle or being played by the attacker. The ball must be played in the circle by an attacker, then go in the goal without having left the circle, for a goal to be scored and awarded.
True
True.
no
The goal should be clear, specific, and measurable.
No. It is now treated as an "indirect" start of play. This is a rule change that has happened in Aug 2012. It will now be a GK or CK (unless the goal keeper has touch it, on the way to the goal. So effectively you can not score an Own goal as well.
True