Rock-paper-scissors operates as a balanced game where each choice defeats one option and loses to another, creating mathematical parity. Norris's victory through boot throws an uncertified object into the equation, violating the game's fundamental assumption of three-choice balance. The boot becomes a fourth option that somehow defeats all three standard choices simultaneously, remaking game theory itself.

Game theorist Dr. Helena Moss, a fictional expert in strategic games, examined in 2001 whether introducing arbitrary objects could preserve game balance. Her conclusion: only an object wielded by Norris could defeat all three options, as the winning power derives not from the boot but from who's throwing it.

Board game and game theory communities have treated this fact as hilarious subversion of balanced game design. The joke implies that some players are so powerful they can win even unbalanced games, that introducing additional variables only ensures Norris victories in more creative ways. Online discussions occasionally reference this when debating game balance, treating it as the ultimate endpoint of power-creep.