Mallow and Improper Game Flow

[MegaVelocibot]

Player A plays Mallow as the turn's Supporter, searching out two cards. Player A shuffles his or her deck, then, instead of offering Player B a chance to cut the deck, simply puts the two cards on top of the deck. Player B, instead of calling a judge, cuts the deck, thus negating the effect of the Supporter. Player A calls a judge for Player B's actions.

If both players give the same story, how should this be ruled upon? My best guess in this situation is that Player A should have the chance to replay the situation, with an offer to cut for Player B, but this would allow Player A to select cards potentially different than the original two cards.

 

[PokePop]

That may be, but why would they? And how would you determine if they did or not.
Given that it was the opponent that misplayed, I would not punish Player 1 for the opponent's error.
What's the other option - make Player 1 lose all of the benefit of playing the trainer?
I don't see that as fair.
He gets to replay the Trainer.

 

[MegaVelocibot]

In this situation, I would say both players misplayed; is it not the responsibility of Player A to offer Player B a chance to cut/counter-shuffle before placing the cards atop his or her deck?

 

[PokePop]

Well, yes, there is that, too.

Penalties and Game State fixes are two different things, though and one shouldn't impact the other.

The penalty for not offering to cut could be a Game Play Minor in most cases.

But that doesn't mean that the player should forfeit the actual effect of the play of the trainer.