I think my statement was taken out of context without the original post, which was very specific as to what was 'average' vs. above average.
But actually, my answer to your question might still be "yes", at some point. If the double back skill is developed to an extent that the technique is solid and the risk is reduced in relationship to that, who's to say someday that should not be acceptable? At some point in the past, a double probably looked too risky to many people. But the strongest athletes continued to evolve and grow their skills to the point where that could be safely executed - and then continued far beyond. Why should we set limits if there is a chance those skills can be safely achieved?
IMO the skills that are allowed need to be controlled by measuring and evaluating the technique behind them, not the skill itself.