How long would the runway have to have been to allow this to be a safe landing?
Of course that is the problem. Turn the question around for a moment and ask how short did the runway need to be to ensure a safe landing? The performance figures for landing make certain assumptions, and one of those assumptions is that you will touch down at the correct touchdown point. It becomes very difficult to establish performance criteria if you allow a situation to develop where you are not complying with those criteria. If a 10,000ft runway has a displaced threshold of 2000ft which would broadly equate to the situation illustrated here, then there is effectively only 7000ft of runway from the touchdown point remaining. In a situation where this is known it may well involve different planned application of braking or other retardation. Weather conditions may well make the use of the shorter runway length unacceptable. All of that would be planned for in advance.
Simply flying a high approach and creating this reduced effective runway length hasn't been planned for, and therin lies the potential problem. Ask how short the runway would need to be, in order to be acceptable in this scenario?
What is wrong with simply throwing it away and having a second attempt to get the fundamentals right. It might be much harder to do, but is likely to show far better overall judgment when it comes to commercial air transport operations.
As has already been pointed out, there have been too many instances of aircraft landing deep and then running out of tarmac to justify what is really just a normalization of deviance in these circumstances.