PRETORIA, South Africa -- What exactly was Oscar Pistorius doing in the moments before he fatally shot his girlfriend in his home? Was he, as the double-amputee Olympian testified Friday, hobbling fearfully on his stumps with his pistol down a passageway from his bedroom toward the bathroom after hearing a possible intruder there? Or, as the chief prosecutor contended, was he instead angrily pursuing his girlfriend in the midst of an argument? Contradicting himself at times, Pistorius sparred with the prosecutor over the differing accounts of what happened on the night he killed Reeva Steenkamp by firing four times through the closed door of a toilet cubicle. The star athlete, who says the shooting was an accident because he mistook her for a robber, faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted of premeditated murder. "My whole being was fixated on this person that I thought was in the bathroom," Pistorius said during the third day of his cross-examination. He said that as he moved toward the bathroom, he screamed to his girlfriend to get down from their bed and call the police. After hearing a noise that made him think someone was opening the toilet door to attack him, Pistorius said he opened fire. Only afterward, he testified, did he realize that Steenkamp was not in the bedroom but in the toilet cubicle. Prosecutor Gerrie Nel, however, said an argument between the couple was the "only reasonable explanation" for why Pistorius, 27, shot the 29-year-old model as she stood behind the toilet door some three meters (yards) away in the pre-dawn hours of Valentines Day last year. Citing earlier expert testimony, Nel noted that the trajectory of the three bullets that hit the model in the hip, arm and head showed she was standing behind the door and facing it. Steenkamp wasnt scared of anyone "other than you," Nel said to the athlete. Nel argued that the position of items in the bedroom also indicated Pistorius story was a fabrication. A duvet on the floor in police photos shows the couple were awake and arguing just before the shooting and not in bed as Pistorius has claimed, he said. Pistorius said it was one of many items apparently moved by police after the shooting. He relentlessly attacked Pistorius account, asking the runner why he didnt determine where Steenkamp was and make sure she was OK before firing, and why he approached what he thought was a danger zone in the dark if he felt vulnerable on his stumps. Nel noted that throughout Pistorius version Steenkamp "never uttered a word." "Its not probable. Its not possible," the prosecutor said, asking why Steenkamp never responded to Pistorius panicked shouts of an intruder when she was in the cubicle. "I agree with Mr. Nel she would have been terrified," Pistorius said, "but I dont think she would have shouted out ... In her mind I must have been retreating toward the bathroom." Nel responded that gave Steenkamp even more reason to talk to Pistorius, who was meters away. "She was standing behind the toilet door talking to you when you shot her," Nel said at the end of the first week of the athletes testimony. "Thats not true," replied Pistorius. The trial in a wood-lined courtroom in the South African city of Pretoria has been closely followed around the world, which once admired Pistorius as a man who persevered despite his disability and reached the pinnacle of his career when he was allowed to run in the London Olympics in 2012. Now, instead of signing autographs in packed stadiums, the multiple Paralympic champion is a solitary figure in the witness box. He stumbled in some of his testimony Friday, prompting the prosecutor to pounce on what he called inconsistencies. "I am tired. Its not going to change," Pistorius said. "Youre trying to cover up for lies," Nel said, "and Im not convinced." Judge Thokozile Masipa then asked Pistorius if he was too tired to continue testifying, saying: "You can be at a disadvantage when youre in that box." Pistorius kept going. Later, Masipa tried to rein in the prosecutor, telling him: "Mind your language. We dont call a witness a liar, not while hes in the witness box." The prosecutor has seized on virtually every opportunity to challenge the star athletes credibility, asserting that he had a string of unlikely excuses for why he wasnt to blame in the gun charges he faces on top of murder. In casting doubt on the Olympians honesty, Nel is pushing the prosecutions argument that Pistorius is also lying that he killed Steenkamp by mistake. On Friday, Nel argued that Pistorius lied about an incident years ago -- when he says someone shot at him from another car on a highway -- to build a backstory that he had a long-held fear of being attacked. Pistorius said he saw a "muzzle flash" and heard "a banging noise" as a black Mercedes drove past him, and he turned off the highway and went to a restaurant parking lot and called someone to pick him up. Nel asked for the identity of the caller; Pistorius replied that he couldnt remember. Pistorius is not allowed to consult with his lawyers during the cross-examination, which resumes Monday. Vince Dunn Jersey . The No. 23 seed at the first Grand Slam event of the tennis season has worked out all the details, from his training regime right down to where hes going to eat dinner. Robby Fabbri Jersey . So he and his Toronto FC teammates say they will have no problem getting up for their Amway Canadian Championship final against rival Montreal Impact, even if the result doesnt count toward Major League Soccer standings. http://www.officialbluesnhlshop.com/jad ... tz-jersey/. PETERSBURG, Fla. Luke Opilka Jersey . - Connor McDavid scored twice and added two assists as the Erie Otters beat the Sarnia Sting 7-3 on Saturday night in Ontario Hockey League action. Paul Stastny Jersey . -- Rookie Victor Oladipo came off the bench to score 20 points and Glen Davis had 18, leading the Orlando Magic to a 112-98 victory over the Detroit Pistons on Wednesday night.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. My question is regarding the actions of a goalie knocking the net off its moorings. Im sure by now you have seen the video where AHL goalie David Leggio sees he is about to face a 2-on-0, so he turns around and takes the net right off the moorings, which results in a penalty shot which he stops! Ingenious play for sure as long as you stop the upcoming penalty shot. Could he also be assessed a misconduct on the play? Also, what happens if on the penalty shot he turns around and lifts the net off its moorings yet again? Does the referee have the option to award an automatic goal or can he then toss the goalie from the game and force the back-up to come in and face the penalty shot? Curious to hear your insight on this strange play! Doug Robichaud, Hampton, NB --- Doug: An ingenious decision for sure by Bridgeport goalie David Leggio to toss the net and subsequently face one shooter on the ensuing penalty shot as opposed to a 2-on-0. Given the fact that Leggio signaled a penalty shot by pointing to centre ice even before the referee did, I doubt his decision to knock the net off the moorings was spontaneous, but instead rehearsed; at least in this astute goalie’s mental visualization exercises. Presently, there is no provision in the rules for the referee to assess a misconduct penalty to Leggio for deliberately displacing the goal post. Given the timing with which Leggio dislodged his net, the referee had no option at his disposal to award a goal under rule 63.6 and/or 25.2. For that to occur, an attacking player must have shot the puck or be in the act of shooting prior to the net being displaced, accidentally or deliberately, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normaal position of the goal posts.dddddddddddd Instead, the appropriate penalty shot was applied by the referee (and Leggio) under rule 63.5 which reads: If the goal post is deliberately displaced by a goalkeeper or player during the course of a “breakaway,” a penalty shot will be awarded to the non-offending team, which shot shall be taken by the player last in possession of the puck. Once the penalty shot procedure was put in motion, Doug, the goalkeeper is allowed to stop the puck in any manner except by throwing his stick or any object, or by deliberately dislodging the goal, in which case a goal shall be awarded. If during the shot Leggio were to “accidentally” dislodge the net in an attempt at making a save, the referee must make one of the following determinations: i) Award a goal if he deems the player would have scored into the area normally occupied by the net had it not been dislodged. ii) Allow the shot to be re-taken if he does not score or it could not be determined if the puck would have entered the area normally occupied by the net. iii) If the goal becomes dislodged after the puck has crossed the goal line thus ending the shot, the above determinations do not apply, the shot is complete. While David Leggio took full advantage of a loophole in the rule to eliminate a 2-on-0, if he were to displace the goal during the course of the subsequent penalty shot (accidentally or otherwise), the rules clearly favour the shooter to allow for either an awarded goal or for the shot to be retaken. My rule change recommendation to plug this loophole would be for the referee, at his discretion, to award a goal when he determines the net has been deliberately dislodged during the course of a breakaway. Until that change is made, there is nothing to stop a goalie from chucking his net to stop play and then go head-to-head with a lone shooter on the penalty shot. Cheap NFL JerseysWholesale JerseysWholesale NFL JerseysJerseys From ChinaWholesale NFL JerseysCheap NFL JerseysCheap Jerseys ' ' '