The foul being accidental doesn't make it not a foul. If it was on purpose (or easier to show, was reckless) that's usually a card.

Fouls don't require intention.

There may be an argument that the foul was incidental and didn't affect play, but that's a pretty difficult argument when it's a foul against a defender in a position to affect play.

Exactly

The cropping I was referring to was on tiktok and threads and what not. "wheres the foul?!" posts where the clip starts after the foul.

While the game was live, it was shown in a replay and I kept saying "I still don't see it" because I wasn't sure where to look or when. It was after the game I saw a clip with the foot highlighted before I saw it.

It's a frustrating call, but a valid call.

I think larger broadcasters can control it somewhat. Idk how it works. But for me(watching from hungary) it was probably the official which did not show it in the replay, they showed a completely different thing about the golie.

Like I said, I don't think they're being used perfectly, no. And I think you're right that they can indeed be used in a negative/unfair way. But I do still believe that having the multi-cam option is a good thing for a professional sporting event. I don't know the exact rules on how they're used in FIFA (so feel free to call me out here), but if I had to guess, I think it's similar to the use of the review box in American Football: the refs on the field make a call, if it's disputed or if they need more info then they go to the cameras, but ultimately the human beings on the field have the final say. Obviously I didn't watch every World Cup match, but I don't recall ever seeing a moment where the VAR stopped play and made a call on its own that every ref on the field had missed. Sports commentators might have seen/talked about something like that, saying that the refs SHOULD have picked up on something, but at the end of the day it's still humans making the initial calls and the cameras are just there to provide evidence.

Like I said, I agree that they're not perfect yet (and probably never will be, but that's a whole other matter). But I still don't think you should throw out the baby with the bath water when they can provide a great benefit for the actual refs on the field who simply can't be everywhere at once. I greatly appreciate you providing some links/examples though where most people (not necessarily in this thread but across the internet) simply rely on the age-old "just trust me bro". At the end of the day, I still think more cameras are an overall benefit, it's just a matter of working out how to better integrate them, and by providing examples of how they're misused we can better figure that out, so thank you 👍

The problem the becomes are the bad or missed calls because they are human, or because the fix is in? That same worry happens with VAR. But it’s reviewable and so bad calls are more easily noticed, and identifying trends is easier.

Sadly not everyone agrees with you on that one (though I'm mostly on your side here). I've seen plenty of people argue 'Oh the refs should've seen that' despite being all the way across the field or 'Oh the judges really should know what the cards do' in a TCG with literally tens of thousands of cards in print, or 'the ump should have called that a strike, look it's catching the corner' as if they don't realize that the graphics they see on TV are not actually visible above the plate, or other similarly-ludicrous takes. Honestly it's a little scary how infallible the 'deciders' are meant to be in these situations and I believe that giving them as many tools as they can reasonably use is an overall positive thing (as long as the humans are still the ones making the final decision, I feel like I should point that out). Though yeah, I agree that that one particular offsides call you're referring to was egregious and the humans in charge should've stepped in and ruled it fair; like I said at the beginning, they're not perfect yet (and probably never will be, but that's a whole other matter)