The days of "winging it" have long gone.
Now the catchcry is, or should be, risk assessment, control, and mitigation/minimisation.
(a) There is a risk in landing past a displaced threshold - no argument.
(b) There is a good likelihood that this risk will increase significantly if the runway is contaminated.
(c) Unless fuel is the driving critical factor, the mitigator is to divert, perhaps ?
If one "ducks under", one
(a) loses the benefit of visual or electronic slope guidance
(b) one assumes a higher risk of a heavy landing and/or tailstrike
and so the argument can go on ...
In the first instance, you pays your money and takes your chances ..
and, in the second ... which of the various scenarios would you prefer to have to defend in court after the accident .... ?