No aircraft manufacturer or Company SOP suggests duck under technique nor does certified landing performance expects a pilot to do that. So there is simply no justification narrow body, wide body, turbo prop all included. If there is a runway which requires that then that type of aircraft should not be operating there. It is not proper to suggest unsafe alternate techniques to increase landing run for the present SWA case. If the touchdown was at proper distance then it will prove that the landing should not have been affected with so many limiting variable environmental and RW lenth factors
You are not giving us anything new. I think most pilots are aware of their type's "air distance" which the landing distance is predicated on. 455 m for the 737. The runway aiming point is 300 m for runways shorter than 2400 m, 450 m for longer runways. The TDZ lights (if installed) extend to 900 m or half the runway length, whichever is shorter. These are ICAO standards and taken from memory, if they're wrong., I would think BUR is close to it anyway. My point is, it's purely academic. Don't come and tell me you touch down half way down a wet runway 8, with 10 kts tail, and tell me it was a good landing cause it was in the TDZ!!! (not saying they did).
Do you ever operate on contaminated? Slush, dry snow, sanded, snow on ice... a combination of them all? The calculations show we are legal, but we all know the braking action is a best guess. My experience with 737 is the brakes are doing a great job. We often stop much shorter than the app tells us. But 1800 m in a 737-800 with contamination and a river at the far end is not the place to be "academic".