What part of the sources I posted do you not understand?
What historical evidence do these "commentators" provide to support their conclusion?
There is nothing to rectify with the scholars you posted.
Gill: "But what seems most likely is, that this sabbath was, as it may be rendered,;the first sabbath after the second day of the passover.
"Seems most likely" Speculation not a definitive statement. Also it does not say "the first Sabbath after the second Sabbath" but "the first sabbath after the second day of the passover."
JFB": an obscure expression, occurring here only, generally understood [by whom?] to mean, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread. The reasons cannot be stated here, nor is the opinion itself quite free from difficulty.
"Obscure expression" "not quite free from difficulty." Not definitive.
Poole "Some understand [Who?] by the second sabbath after the first, the seventh day of the feast of unleavened bread. Others, [Who?] their second great festival. It is very hard to resolve, and not material for us to know. For the history itself:"
Two different opinions "very hard to resolve, and not material for us to know." Not definitive.
Matthew Henry
"This story here has a date, which we had not in the other evangelists; it was on the second sabbath after the first (Luk_6:1), that is, as Dr. Whitby thinks is pretty clear, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread, from which day they reckoned the seven weeks to the feast of pentecost; the first of which they called Sabbaton deuteroprōton, the second deuterodeuteron, and so on."