This very topic has been kicking around the crew room(s) of late.
The thing that concerns me with "lateral" thinking is that it isn't briefed. If you have a nice long runway and a smallish turboprop then by all means brief the PNF that stopping post V1 is an option or else confusion will reign. There has been discussion of a re-land after V1 and a engine/failure etc. The thing with that is now you are in "no man's land". As has been said, us line pilots aren't test pilots and there's no performance figures published on what we are about to attempt. I kicked around some figures the other day and the distance required to safely stop was quite long. Much longer than many of the crew think. I can see the point about the fire burn throughs and it's better for the wing to fall off when on the ground but that sort of problem doesn't happen *that* often.
What worries me is that some captains are now starting to think that it is better to chuck the aircraft back on the ground and "it'll be ok". Well, no, not really. At the risk of teaching the learned readers here to suck eggs, the aircraft is now going faster than the probably V ref, certainly not in a landing configuration and with a lot less runway than would have been available if a circuit had have been done.
Lateral and flexible thinking is fine so long as the crew are both in the loop and there's been some reasonable thought gone into it.
#I fly a smallish turboprop. I have yet to sample the delights of a jet.