In theory, no.
In reality, yes it is a problem.
Not all pixels refresh at the same time, so it is a timing precision problem, since not all pixels refresh at the same time, and display manufacturers didn't really consider perfect 1:1 sync between LCD scanout and FALD scanout (synchronizing two scanouts perfectly).
Local dimming electronics (FALD pulse timing controllers) are too slow or inflexible-programmability to be pefectly in sync with LCD scanout (www.blurbusters.com/scanout). Local dimming often has motion artifacts like 1-frame lagbehind effects, and local dimming also adds input latency, so there's some difficulties.
These are solvable, but... the race to bottom for cheaper 3-figure-priced local dimming has made it hard to add luxury features to MiniLED controllers... The situation could very well change, but 100% of all MiniLED controllers I tested, aren't able to have enough timing precision to do strobing at high quality (yet).
Related topic:
Why Do Lower Hz Have Clearer Strobing?.
See the engineering diagrams.
Except add the engineering complexity dimension of FALD, with precisely timed scanning backlight behavior. FALD could become a perfect scanning backlight, if the timing precision is re-engineered with new FALD controller chips. But such special FALD controller chips doesn't yet exist on the consumer market. Ouch.
Blur Busters used to be named scanningbacklight[.]com in year 2012 when we discovered engineering problems of scanning backlights at www.blurbusters.com/faq/scanningbacklight ... Today, FALD means near-perfect scanning backlights are theoretically possible, but we need better timing-controller chips for FALDs first. You wouldn't need Large Vertical Total tricks anymore, since you can flash a row out-of-phase of LCD scanout, and have low crosstalk, and delightfully good "VSYNC OFF" latency mechanics (panel:scanout sync, TOP=CENTER=BOTTOM preserved), and be a strobe dream for LCDs. But we're not quite there yet.
