Guys, just wanted to point out that this thing you keep calling a plot hole isn't a plot hole. That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Rather, the issue of why the FO didn't take more aggressive action earlier is a "head scratcher."
A plot hole is when something happens in the story that literally makes no physical sense with no explanation. As in, if the story played out in real life and not fiction, then the story literally could not continue from that point. The writer/director divided by zero. A head scratcher is when something should have happened, or a character or characters should have taken more logical action, but didn't.
I'm not defending the film's plot; just merely pointing out the difference between an actual hole and questionable story progression.
A plot hole, defined by Oxford Dictionary, is simply: An inconsistency in the narrative or character development of a book, film, television programme, etc.
If you want to get less board, the definition is: A gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot.
The movie already established that they have a tracking device that shows them the exact spot the rebel ship is at. We have established that the rebels can't jump because they have fuel only for one more jump, and the Order will just follow them, which they already did once. For them not to use any logic beyond this point to end the rebels, when they have 18 hrs to do so is a plot hole.
Maybe if it had been a lone pilot in a small ship, who decided not to contact the Order because he thought he could handle it on his own. But, this situation has the Supreme Leader's attention, and therefore the entire force of the Order behind it. If this is their logic in an easily handled situation, then it makes it even more implausible that they are the ones who have taken control of the galaxy.